Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

The Minister was asked—

Pigmeat

Miss Anne McIntosh: What plans he has to ban the import of pigmeat derived from animals fed on meat and bonemeal; and if he will make a statement. [83846]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We will continue to urge retailers, caterers and consumers to take account of quality, animal welfare and other considerations when sourcing pork and pork products. An import ban on such products would be incompatible with our European Union and World Trade Organisation obligations.

Miss McIntosh: Following the Agriculture Committee's positive report on the pig industry, and given the unprecedented difficulties being experienced by the pig sector, will the Government at least ban the import of animals fed on meat and bonemeal whose consumption has been banned in this country? We have unilaterally banned sow stalls and tethers in this country, and have put our pig producers in a very uncompetitive position in relation to producers in other European countries. Will the Government finally, once and for all, act today?

Mr. Morley: What the hon. Lady asks cannot be delivered in the context of the single market regulations. Conservative Members have asked whether measures such as article 36 of the treaty of Rome could be used to ban the import of meat produced from pigs that have been confined to sow stalls and tethers. As there are common standards applying to the European Union, article 36 cannot be used.
I should add that, when there was talk of using article 36 to ban the export of calves going into veal crates, the Conservative Government voted against it.

Mr. Ian Cawsey: Does my hon. Friend agree that the animal welfare standards that apply to the pig sector in this country should apply throughout

Europe? Will he confirm that the new standards applied here have led to a premium in British pig prices above the European norm, which we hope will continue?
Will my hon. Friend consider the establishment of a specific rendering plant for pork? That would mean that offal could be an asset for our pig farmers, rather than the liability that it is now.

Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right. Tethers are to be banned in the European Union, and we believe that sow stalls should be banned as well—as does the European scientific and veterinary committee.
The price of pigmeat is 20 per cent. higher in the United Kingdom than the European average, which reflects the higher welfare and quality standards of British-produced pork and pork products and the existence of a demand. That demonstrates the importance of concentrating on quality and animal welfare standards.
The Meat and Livestock Commission has discussed with my right hon. Friend the Minister the possibility of a dedicated rendering plant for meat and bonemeal, and we are considering it carefully.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Has the Minister urged his opposite numbers in the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to prevail on health authorities and local authorities to obtain only pigmeat and pork products that have been produced according to the high health and welfare standards that pertain in this country? Does he not recognise that it would be reprehensible for taxpayers to fund the purchase of pork from abroad that had not been produced according to the standards that apply here?

Mr. Morley: My right hon. Friend the Minister has written to local authorities, and all Ministers have taken every opportunity to suggest that local authorities specify welfare and quality standards. However, many local authorities have difficulties in relation to best value, and restrictions on tendering that were introduced by the Conservative Government.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously we cannot ban the import of pork, but surely we should ensure that people know what imported pigs have been fed on, as well as knowing what health and welfare standards have been applied. That would at least give our pig farmers a fighting chance. Will my hon. Friend consider introducing appropriate labelling?

Mr. Morley: The Meat and Livestock Commission and the pig industry have launched a quality British pork label, and many Agriculture Ministers and other hon. Members have attended publicity events connected with the launch. We want consumers to know that what they are buying is British-produced, and produced according to the quality and welfare standards that we know consumers want.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Does the Minister not realise that, given the crisis in the pig industry, what Britain needs is a fair deal for British pig farmers? Will he not accept our advice? First, the Government should introduce labelling that shows both the method of production and the country of origin of all pigmeat sold here. Secondly, will the Minister challenge the unlawful


cash payments made by the French Government to French pig farmers, evidence of which I delivered to his office by hand last week? Thirdly, will the Minister do what the Government of any other European Union member state would do in the event of a similar crisis in their pig sector, and at least try to halt the import of illegally produced pigmeat? If he is challenged in the courts, he will have our full support.

Mr. Morley: That is very reassuring.
We have repeatedly shown our support for the British pig industry, and there have been discussions in the Council of Ministers about the crisis in not just the United Kingdom pig industry, but the industry in Europe as a whole. As for the French proposals for aid, the Commission is to examine them to ensure that they are compatible with European law.
In relation to the last point, I must repeat that Compassion in World Farming brought a court case to the European Court of Justice about the possibility of using article 36 to stop the export of veal calves to the continent—the same procedures that the hon. Gentleman is now arguing should be used. The then Conservative Government vehemently opposed that suggestion. The court ruled against it, which set the legal precedent that such measures cannot be used.

Quarantine Reform

Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on progress on quarantine 0reform. [83847]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): On 26 March, I announced that new arrangements were planned to be in operation by April 2001, with a pilot scheme beforehand. I am looking at the options, but am minded that the pilot scheme should initially be open to a range of carriers on a range of routes and targeted at pet owners who are likely to come to, or return to the United Kingdom for a longer period than a conventional summer holiday. I am also minded to include guide dogs for the blind and for the deaf in the pilot scheme.

Mr. Chapman: May I welcome the progress that the Government are making on the subject and congratulate my right hon. Friend on it? It compares favourably with the complete lack of progress under the previous Administration. None the less, many people in Wirral, South are concerned about the facility of bringing their pets home after a period overseas. What reaction has he received from transport operators to his proposals for a pilot scheme?

Mr. Brown: Some weeks ago, I organised a meeting with representatives of transport operators. Discussions have continued between my officials and those of the different transport operators. The response from all sectors has been favourable and, from most, enthusiastic. Transport operators are rising to the challenge and recognise the potential of the scheme.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister confirm that it is not a question of keeping just rabies out of this country? Other canine infections are

endemic on the continent, yet absent in Britain. Can he give the House the assurance that, if he does change the quarantine laws—personally, I would welcome it if he did—to satisfy the public, it must be shown that there is no greater likelihood of any of those canine infections coming to our country?

Mr. Brown: That is a fair point. As Professor Kennedy outlined in his report, we are proceeding. Officials at my Department are in discussion with officials at the Department of Health to ensure that, as well as protecting against rabies, we take the opportunity to ensure that the pre-entry procedures protect, as much as they reasonably can, against other canine infections.

Mr. Andrew Reed: I warmly welcome not only the speed with which my right hon. Friend has moved on the issue, but the responsibility that he has taken on. I particularly welcome the announcement that guide dogs will be included in the pilot scheme. However, is he aware of the difficulty of a constituent of mine whose sister lives in Florida in the United States? Her dog is already microchipped, already has a health certificate and would be healthy to travel to the UK. However, there is still a delay on the announcement about the United States and Canada. Therefore, may I urge him to make a decision as quickly as possible, so that my constituent's sister is able to return to the UK with her guide dog as speedily as possible?

Mr. Brown: I am sympathetic to individuals in the circumstances that my hon. Friend outlines. A number of hard cases have been put to me, but I do not think that it would be right to deal with individual cases at ministerial level before we have the pilot scheme in place. It is the Government's intention that the pilot scheme will lead to a full-scale scheme as quickly as possible. On the question of the United States, I hope to have something further to say to the House in a matter of weeks, but we are moving ahead in trying to get a scheme that will meet the needs of those who wish to bring pets in from north America.

Poultry Plants

Mr. John Whittingdale: What representations he has received about the level of regulation on low throughput poultry plants. [83848]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We have received representations from Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament, industry organisations and poultry plant operators, about the impact of proposals to increase the level of veterinary supervision in meat plants and to increase Meat Hygiene Service inspection charges. We have had just over 40 representations altogether.

Mr. Whittingdale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of full-time veterinary supervision for low throughput producers has already driven four firms out of business and caused another four to deregulate to the exempt sector? Will he accept that that level of supervision is unnecessary for high-quality, free-range producers such as Kelly Turkeys in my constituency?


Will he seek to establish from the Commission, as a matter of urgency, exactly what is the legal position on this matter?

Mr. Rooker: We are seeking to establish with the Commission the issue of derogation in the poultry meat directive. Our legal understanding has always been that it applies only to the structural improvements, but we are checking on that and seeking clarification. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but every day in this country we slaughter 2 million chickens for us to eat. I am not prepared to put at risk the hygiene checks on the industry that are necessary for public protection.

Farm Incomes

Mr. Colin Pickthall: If he will make a statement on the outcome of the May Agriculture Council concerning the recent agreement on common agricultural policy reform in relation to farm incomes. [83850]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The reform will increase the market orientation of European agriculture and assist producers in their efforts to improve the competitive position of their businesses. In the short term, before the adjustments take place, there may be a small negative impact on aggregate incomes, but the hard-pressed beef sector is fully protected.

Mr. Pickthall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the possibility for modulation according to national priorities could be a great opportunity to make the common agricultural policy more acceptable to Britain? Does he expect to be able to use the system to provide more assistance to small family farms and possibly to new entrants into fanning?

Mr. Brown: I am not an advocate of modulation, but it is permitted by horizontal measure 4 of the agreement. We consulted on the issue in principle in January, before the final phase of the negotiations, and the majority of farmers liked the idea in principle and responded positively. We are consulting further and we shall be consulting the Agriculture Ministers of the devolved authorities.

Mr. Robert Walter: Two years ago farmers were told that things can only get better under Labour. Since then, farm incomes have collapsed. Will the so-called reform of the common agricultural policy give farmers any long-term hope? It appears that the reform is totally incompatible with the next world trade round and takes no account of the cost of EU enlargement. Can the Minister reassure fanners?

Mr. Brown: I want to make it absolutely clear that I would have liked to have seen the reform agenda advocated by the United Kingdom and others go further and be introduced more quickly than it was in the negotiations that were concluded in Berlin. The common agricultural policy is undoubtedly moving in the right direction and there are substantial benefits in it for British agriculture. The task for Ministers and, dare I say it, for Parliament is to ensure that we make use of all the

measures now open to us, including the rural development measures, to ensure that small, medium and large farms come through the present downturn in the agricultural cycle to profitability, a decent return on the work that farmers are doing, on the capital they have invested and on the investment in their livestock and crops.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend will know that the Conservatives are always telling us that they want to keep the veto. Is the retention of that veto helpful in renegotiating the CAP?

Mr. Brown: It is important that the Government have been able to get our country back to the heart of the negotiations with our partners in the European Union. We have been able to make substantial progress on our reform agenda in each and every area of the CAP and stabilise the budget in a way that the previous Government failed to do.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Given that the Minister has correctly acknowledged, today and previously, that the interim CAP reform will have to be revisited—for the very correct reasons referred to by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter)—will he confirm that the British Government's efforts in the matter will be concentrated on making the case, with renewed vigour, for shifting more funds, and fresh funds into wider rural development? We have to do that if we are to maintain the viability of our agricultural sector, particularly in the United Kingdom's less viable parts in terms of incomes.
In answering the initial question, the Minister mentioned the emerging devolved structure in the United Kingdom. Will he amplify a little more on how he sees the agricultural representatives in Edinburgh and in Cardiff contributing under that structure, and does he welcome the fact that part of the coalition deal between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats in Scotland—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Sell out."] I am interested to hear Conservative Members use that phrase. I should have thought that they would welcome the fact that we shall see the introduction of an independent arbitration service for agriculture, for which we have long been calling. Now that one is being established in Scotland, when will similar services be established across the United Kingdom?

Mr. Brown: I welcome the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question. I set big store by the rural development measures. I am looking forward to working closely with the Agriculture Ministers from the devolved authorities—the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The House will want to know that the mechanisms that I propose to use for consultations with the other Ministers are exactly the same as ones now operating within the Government, except that meetings of officials before the Council of Ministers will—I hope; it is subject to agreement with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly—be supplemented by ministerial meetings between me and the other Agriculture Ministers.
On the hon. Gentleman's final point, I am examining whether it would be possible to introduce such arrangements into England. However, I do urge people not to place too much hope in such a mechanism, as all


that it could do would be to confirm that the regulations—which are very rigidly drawn—are being properly operated. The scope for altering decisions that have been made is very tightly circumscribed, and there is not as much discretion in the matter as would perhaps be normal in United Kingdom law.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Minister confirm that, prior to the previous general election, the Labour party was in favour of modulation in support payments? May I, please, impress on him the need for a really serious look at modulation—which would assist upland farmers, who are most under strain in the current economic climate?

Mr. Brown: I am taking a hard look at it, and the consultation is a serious one. I have been struck by the response to my January consultation from farmers across a range of agricultural sectors. They were in favour of it, at least in principle, and wanted the idea to be explored further. Modulation is, of course, divisive in the agricultural sector, as those who believe that they could be beneficiaries of it are advocates, whereas those who believe that they could lose out by it are sceptical of it. We therefore have to proceed carefully.

Beef Industry

Mr. William Thompson: What assessment he has made of the implications for the beef industry of a lifting of the ban on the sale of beef on the bone in one part of the United Kingdom only. [83851]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The Government have made clear our wish to revoke the beef bones controls as soon as the scientific and medical evidence indicate that it is prudent to do so. Until then, we believe that United Kingdom-wide application of the controls will best protect public health and maintain confidence in beef and beef products.

Mr. Thompson: Given the fact that the ban was imposed to safeguard the health of everyone in the United Kingdom, would it not be ludicrous if the ban were lifted in Scotland and in Wales but not in the whole of the United Kingdom? Will the Minister give an assurance that, if it is lifted in Scotland and in Wales, it will be lifted also in Northern Ireland—which, currently, is the only part of the United Kingdom that is able to export beef?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We have had this discussion before. Confidence in the industry is important, but the need to protect the health of the public is of overriding importance. The Government's recommendation was based on the advice of the chief medical officer—not just the chief medical officer for England, who advises my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and me, but the separate officers who advise my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland. The Government decision was unanimous. It is difficult for Ministers to set to one side the clearly stated advice of the senior professional whose duty it is to advise them.

Mr. Barry Jones: I support my right hon. Friend and urge him to take no criticism

From Her Majesty's Opposition, who showed great incompetence on these matters during the 18 years that they had the power of decision over that great British industry. Will he assure me that he greatly appreciates eating the roast beef of Great Britain, that he likes a pork chop and a leg of lamb and that he believes that tasting and enjoying those products of the British industry makes him a better leader and negotiator? I should like to hear such appreciation of a great industry.

Mr. Brown: I am an enthusiastic supporter of the British meat industry and an enthusiastic consumer of its products. At events organised by the Meat and Livestock Commission and others, I am pleased to be joined by hon. Members from both sides, sharing that appreciation of the best of Britain.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Why is the Minister so hostile to the poor old British beef farmer? [Interruption.] Labour Back Benchers seem to find that extraordinarily funny. They obviously have not talked to any beef farmers recently. The Minister wants to allow imports of US beef fed on hormones that are banned in this country. He boasted last November about the end of the export ban, then waited five months before inviting European Commission officials to carry out that decision. He is destroying confidence in beef by keeping the absurd ban on beef on the bone when even the Government's chief scientist has said that it is not scientifically justified. Is it not time that Britain had a Minister of Agriculture who wanted a fair deal for Britain's beef farmers?

Mr. Brown: We agree on that, then. This country has a Minister of Agriculture who wants a fair deal for British beef farmers. It has a Minister of Agriculture who got the beef ban lifted. It has a Minister of Agriculture who ensured that the beef sector was fully compensated for the price adjustments in the CAP round. It has a Minister of Agriculture who supports the work of the Meat and Livestock Commission and is able to maintain public confidence in beef products. A political lifting of a ban imposed for health reasons would do nothing for public confidence in the industry. On hormone-treated beef from the United States I am continuing the policy of the previous Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was a member and a supporter.

Specified Risk Materials

Mr. Jim Cunningham: What measures he is taking to ensure that controls on specified risk materials do not place additional burdens on the livestock industry. [83852]

The Minister of State, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): My right hon. Friend the Minister announced last month the deferral of industry charging for the cost of specified risk material enforcement for a further year, which is worth about £20 million to industry.

Mr. Cunningham: I welcome my right hon. Friend's deferral of the SRM charges. Will he also treat his review of other charges throughout the industry with some urgency?

Mr. Rooker: Yes. Let us be clear about this. Deferring the SRM charges means that the taxpayer is continuing to


pay for the work, which is still being done. There were about 4,000 SRM inspections last year. The industry has been successful. It is 36 months since we found any spinal cord attached to a bovine carcase. There has been excellent work in the industry, but it must be checked and audited. We have to make sure in the public interest that it is carried out properly.
So far as the other charges are concerned, we have not yet announced the meat hygiene charges for 1999–2000, and they will not be backdated. We are carrying the cost of not making the decision yet. We have undertaken a further, brief consultation that closed last week, and we will make our decision and announcements as quickly as we can.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the Minister aware that although the review is welcome—we particularly pressed for it—the speed with which the new consultation took place was resented, particularly by smaller producers who did not feel that they were given adequate time to look at it? Does the Minister accept that the important thing is to get the right decision rather than simply a quick decision, and if that results in low-throughput abattoirs being driven out of business, the lack of competition will be devastating for the meat industry?

Mr. Rooker: We have no intention as a policy objective of driving low-throughput abattoirs out of business. We can make decisions on the basis of the consultation that we have already undertaken, and there are no surprises here for anybody. We decided to announce a further, quick check of the industry. Given the amount of letters, correspondence and representations, I accept that seven days was a short time. However, it was not as if anyone had to start from scratch in putting together their further representations. I do not accept that the consultation was only seven days. Added to the previous consultation, it makes a considerable length of time.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: The decision concerning deferral has been widely welcomed by farmers in my constituency, and is an indication that this Government genuinely listen to beef producers. However, does my hon. Friend believe that there is a need to ask some searching questions of our European competitors on their charging policy in relation to hygiene costs and specified risk material removal to ensure fair competition throughout the EU?

Mr. Rooker: SRM removal is a BSE enforcement measure. We must do that, and it is not common throughout the rest of the EU—simply because those countries do not have BSE on anywhere near the scale that we have had. I must also knock on the head the idea that the measure applies to everyone. I heard a programme the other week on which a pig farmer was bewailing the SRM charges. SRM conditions apply only to cattle and sheep, and not to any other meat. The SRM charges were the biggest section of the increase that was forthcoming. To that extent, I am sure that the deferral has received a wide welcome.
So far as the meat hygiene enforcement charges in the rest of Europe are concerned, we have put in the Library recently our assessment of the information that we

have collected. We have no evidence that we are gold-plating and going over the top in comparison with other European nations. The contrary is true.

Mr. James Paice: Why does not the Minister stop bragging about abandoning a charge for one year when the truth is that it was introduced by his Government in the first place, without any concern for its impact on the industry? How can we take seriously any concern for abattoir costs when he so contemptuously allowed just seven days for a response to the consultation? Why does he not do something useful today, and lift the specified offals controls on pig-only abattoirs, as was recommended earlier? If seven days is long enough for a consultation, the Minister has had more than that to consult the MLC. He could do it now.

Mr. Rooker: Yes. We announced the introduction of charges for the removal of specified risk materials, but we did not do so through a written question or a letter. I announced it in a Committee in November 1997. There was not a single comment from any Conservative Member of Parliament present in the Committee that morning. The idea that this has just been put to the industry without any forewarning is nonsense. We put off the charges for the first year and the second year, and we will decide what to do for the third year before it starts.

Dietary Supplements

Mr. Christopher Chope: If he will make a statement on Government policy towards the classification of nutritional dietary supplements as food. [83853]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Most products described as dietary supplements are considered in law to be foods. The Government have no plans to change this arrangement.

Mr. Chope: That answer is rather complacent. There is tremendous concern among health food manufacturers over the issue of definitions. There is no definition in law of a health food supplement. The manufacturers and consumers do not want the products to be banned as a result of the very wide definition that now applies to medicines. It is thought that the definition of medicines would include brandy, glucose and red wine, for example, as well as many other nutritional substances. Does the Minister accept that we need a clear definition of food supplements that ensures that they do not fall under the same regulatory regime as medicines?

Mr. Morley: The background to this is that the Medicines Control Agency is considering some of the foods that could possibly be classed as medicines rather than food supplements. There is a very clear definition of what is and is not a medicine. There have been some doubts about whether some of the foods currently on sale should be defined as medicines and regulated accordingly. That is why the MCA is acting, following an article 169 letter from the Commission asking the Government to review the question.
Some manufacturers and consumers have the impression that the MCA is seeking to reclassify supplements as medicines. That is not the case. It is


considering the definitions and will take into account the representations that it has received as part of the consultation process.

Mr. Mark Todd: I hope that my hon. Friend will reflect on the views of two manufacturers in my constituency, Peter Black Healthcare and Surepharm, which are concerned about the potential impact of MCA regulation. I welcome the reassurance that the regulation will not apply to existing products, but of course many companies will be concerned about the possible application to products developed in the future. Can we at least hasten the work of the expert group that was commissioned to consider the matter? What progress has it made?

Mr. Morley: It is certainly true that the expert group, set up in 1997, is examining the issue. It is expected to report to the Food Advisory Committee towards the end of 2000. It is a major review, and there are many issues to consider. I repeat that it is not the intention unnecessarily to restrict the sale of vitamins and minerals or indeed to apply arbitrary limits without any scientific basis, but it is right and proper to regulate certain vitamins and supplements that may have a physiological effect and could come within the definition of medicines.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: May I stress the wide public concern about this matter? On Monday, I received a petition of nearly 1,000 signatures from a health food shop in my constituency, which shows that people do not want to be deprived of their supplements and feel that, if there is the remotest danger, they should be warned and allowed to take an adult decision. Some of the supplements and herbal remedies have been in use since Anglo-Saxon times.

Mr. Morley: Some people are concerned about the current MCA review, but the intention is not to reclassify supplements as medicines. There are some grey areas and we need to examine whether some products are in fact medicines. It is a consultative process, and the views of both consumers and manufacturers will be taken into account.

Food Standards Bill

Ms Joan Ryan: How many responses he has received on the draft Food Standards Bill. [83854]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): By the closing date for consultation on the draft Bill, in addition to the Food Standards Committee report, we had received 998 submissions, all of which will be placed in the Library later today.

Ms Ryan: I welcome the way in which the Ministry and the Department of Health have acted on food safety since May 1997 and the fact that the Government allowed pre-legislative scrutiny. That approach is a marked change from the attitude of the previous Government. When will the Bill be introduced?

Mr. Rooker: Hopefully, next month. We are intent on legislating in this Session on the draft Food Standards Bill. We are still dependent—not wholly, but to some extent—on the progress of the House of Lords Bill. If the hereditary peers break their word again, as they did earlier this week, we will be in some difficulty. We hope, however, to introduce the Food Standards Bill in this House next month.

Mr. John Bercow: Is the Minister aware that local authorities believe that between £15 and £23 of the proposed £90 Food Standards Agency tax will be spent on the costs of collection? Given the fear expressed in the recent Agriculture Committee report that the charge could rise to £600 a year—a fear that causes grave anxiety among the corner shop owners in the Aylesbury Vale district council area, which incorporates my Buckingham constituency—what estimate has he made of the number of such corner shops that are likely to have to shed staff and throw people on the dole as a result of that ill-considered imposition?

Mr. Rooker: At approximately the same time as we introduce the Bill, which is—in effect—another part of the consultation process, we will announce the result of our secondary consultation on the levy. That was a separate consultation in a separate document. We have made it clear that we take seriously the submissions made to us, and I can say that there is no shred of a possibility of a single levy charge of anything near £600. The reason for the appearance of that figure in the record of the exchanges of the Select Committee is that I gave an honest answer to an honest question that did not automatically presuppose that the rate would be £600. We will announce our decision on the charge, but we want a fair system.
Unless the levy raises some £40 million, we will not have a Food Standards Agency. Therefore, we have to raise that sum, but we have to do so fairly and in a way that is seen to be fair. We have told local authorities that, within the charge, they will be able to recover their collection charges and retain a surplus to provide more resources for enforcement.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Does the Minister welcome the achievement of the Scottish Liberal Democrats in winning a commitment in the partnership agreement to find a fairer funding system for the Food Standards Agency? Is he, as he has perhaps indicated, likely to follow suit? It would be unfair if the small village shop had to pay the same levy as the wealthy large supermarkets.

Mr. Rooker: We shall have to be careful choosing our words now that we have devolution, especially as we are working in partnership in different parts of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] No, I am ever the diplomat at the Dispatch Box. The Food Standards Agency will be a United Kingdom authority, but we will be in the unique position of setting up that UK authority in devolved subject areas. Therefore, it is crucial that the issue is addressed so that differences can be taken into account by the regulatory authorities in those areas. I am certain that we will find a satisfactory solution that is fair to small shopkeepers, is fair between England, Scotland and Wales, and is perceived to be fair by the public, because that is also important.

Pig Industry

Mr. Hilton Dawson: If he will make a statement about the incomes of farmers in the pig industry. [83856]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The Government are fully aware of the difficulties still facing the pig industry. However, market prices have improved by 33 per cent. since the low point in January and currently stand some 20 per cent. above the average European Union price.

Mr. Dawson: I thank my right hon. Friend for the serious and level-headed attention that he brings to that important subject, in contrast to some of the overblown rhetoric and nonsense we hear from Conservative Members. I commend to him the pigmeat products from the Lancaster and Wyre constituency; perhaps we should call it the Duchy of Lancaster pig. Will he give some serious attention to how notable firms such as North West Fine Foods can fully exploit the niche market of quality local produce, selling to quality local people and quality visitors?

Mr. Brown: I fully take my hon. Friend's point, but there is no protectionist solution to the sector's problems. The way forward is to support the Meat and Livestock Commission's campaign on assured British pork, ham and bacon. At the same time, we must urge retailers to make sure that the welfare premium for which we voted in 1991 is obtained by producers in the marketplace.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The Attorney-General was asked—

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Christopher Chope: If he will make it the policy of the Crown Prosecution Service to disclose to the victims of crime the reasons for deciding in any case not to prosecute. [83876]

The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): The Crown Prosecution Service provides to the police information about casework decisions so that the police may forward it to victims. How much information can be given may depend on the circumstances of individual cases. The CPS must balance openness with victims with the interests of others involved in cases. As to the future, the Crown Prosecution Service is considering whether or not to take over from the police the responsibility for informing victims of the reasons for CPS casework decisions. I intend to make a statement on this in June.

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. My question was, as he knows, prompted by a constituency case, involving Mr. Ellis, the author of a book entitled, "Thoth: The Architect of the Universe". After it was published, the book was subject to massive plagiarism by Random House, one of the world's largest publishers. No fewer than 70 pages and some diagrams from his book were reproduced word for word in a Random House book. The publishers were put on

notice that Mr. Ellis objected, and they undertook not to carry out publication. However, they did publish, taking advantage of their position in the market as one of the largest publishers. My constituent went to the police to seek redress under section 107 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Many months later, Mr. Ellis received a letter from the CPS saying that it would not prosecute but giving no reason. That is most unsatisfactory, and I hope that the Attorney-General can explain to Mr. Ellis why—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising a constituency case across the Floor of the House. He might do better to make proper written representations to the Attorney-General, which would give the right hon and learned Gentleman an opportunity to consider it.

Mr. Chope: Further to your remarks, Madam Speaker, I have written to the Attorney-General, and I have had no reply.

Madam Speaker: Well, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows about it now.

The Attorney-General: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice this morning of the matters in which he is interested. He wrote to me as recently as 30 April concerning his constituent, Mr. Ellis, about whom he is obviously concerned. The hon. Gentleman's letter has been transferred to the Home Office for an answer. As I understand matters from the hurried inquiries that I have been able to make, the case is at present a matter for the police. So far as I know—and I shall have to make further inquiries following what the hon. Gentleman said—the CPS is not involved. I may be wrong on that point, but I have been unable to make further progress on it during the past two hours. I will write to the hon. Gentleman as the situation develops.

Shona McIsaac: In cases involving death, what is the policy of the CPS towards keeping bereaved families informed of casework decisions, which cause much concern to many people?

The Attorney-General: I share my hon. Friend's concern. In cases involving death, a senior CPS lawyer will be available to meet bereaved families to explain CPS casework decisions and relevant criminal law procedures. That is the long-established policy of the CPS, and it is reflected in its commitments to the victims charter. The policy recognises the special sensitivity that must be given to handling homicide cases.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: On the broader issue of communicating with victims, is not the real problem the continuing lack of effective communication between the prosecutor and the officer in the case and, through him, the victim? Is that because the Crown Prosecution Service does not explain matters to the police administration support units, or is it because the message does not get from those units back to the officer and the victim? Does the Attorney-General recall that in his report, Sir lain Glidewell made a number of recommendations both for research and action in that area? Will he please tell us what is happening?

The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I know from long experience that the


system is not perfect—hence Sir Iain Glidewell's recommendations. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall from my earlier answer, the CPS is considering the matter to find out how the situation can be improved, given that there are two inputs—initially the police and, secondly, the CPS. I intend to make a statement because I know of the concern about the matter—it was registered by Sir Iain—when I make a further statement on his recommendations in June.

Mr. Nigel Beard: What progress has been made in implementing the Glidewell report in London. [83877]

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): Sir Iain Glidewell's review of the CPS made three recommendations specific to London. First, that CPS London should be organised broadly along the same lines as other CPS areas covering large conurbations. This has been accepted. A new chief Crown prosecutor for London has been appointed, supported by an area business manager. Secondly, Sir kin recommended that assistant chief Crown prosecutors be appointed. That has been implemented. Thirdly, he recommended that the special problems of London required greater co-operation between all the criminal justice agencies. The detail of that recommendation, especially in relation to trial issues groups, remains under consideration. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will make a statement in June, as he said a moment ago.

Mr. Beard: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Is he aware of the long-standing concern among police and magistrates in Bexley at the avoidable delays and inefficiencies that have arisen because the nearest office of the Crown Prosecution Service is at the Cooperage, London Bridge, rather than local? For that reason, the Glidewell report was welcome: it promised an integration of the police, the magistrates and the CPS and definite benefits arising from that. Indeed, space was reserved in the new Bexleyheath police station for a CPS unit.
Now those who were previously encouraged are dismayed at the way in which they believe the Glidewell report is being implemented. The dismay arises on three counts. One is the understanding that the nearest CPS office to Bexley will be in Croydon—the journey there is more difficult than it is to the Cooperage at London Bridge. The second count is that information technology arrangements are poor and reflect the lack of resources that are being put into the arrangement. The third is that the present reorganisation of magistrates courts in London is not being taken into account.
Will my hon. and learned Friend please review the arrangements in south-east London with a view to bringing the CPS as near as possible to the police and magistrates?

Madam Speaker: Order. Questions should be brisk and to the point. The hon. Gentleman is raising an Adjournment debate. I hope that the Minister will not take as long in his response, or we shall never move down the Order Paper.

The Solicitor-General: I would not dare, Madam Speaker, given what you have said.
I can tell my hon. Friend who is assiduous in pursuing criminal justice issues in his area, that there are no plans at present to transfer work that is being undertaken by the Bexley team at London Bridge to Croydon. Also, as a result of an earlier review, the branch has already implemented a system whereby a dedicated team of staff work at Bexley magistrates court. [HON. MEMBERS: "Write!"] Following that suggestion from Opposition Members, I will write to my hon. Friend with full details of the matter.

Private Sector Lawyers

Mr. Harry Cohen: What plans he has to increase the use of private sector lawyers by prosecution services. [83878]

The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office have no immediate plans to increase the use of private sector lawyers. The CPS is working with the Bar to foster closer working relationships while seeking to increase the use of in-house lawyers employed by the CPS who have achieved success in obtaining the higher court advocacy qualification. The aim is to increase competition, improve standards and quality, and achieve best value for money.

Mr. Cohen: Is there not an increasingly good case for hiring the best local solicitors to reduce delays in getting prosecution cases to court and get better results in more complicated cases? Is there not an opportunity to turn some of the poachers into gamekeepers?

The Solicitor-General: All prosecution services can instruct private sector lawyers or in-house lawyers with the higher court advocacy qualification. The decision depends on the circumstances of the case. There has been no significant change in their use recently, one way or the other. My hon. Friend's comment has a certain validity. If there are suitable local lawyers, I am sure that the CPS will consider employing them.

Mr. John Burnett: Does the Solicitor-General have any proposals to encourage experienced lawyers in mid-career to join the CPS? Will he assure the House that no stigma will attach to lawyers applying to rejoin the CPS, on the ground that early in their careers they had been members of the service?

The Solicitor-General: I am sure that we would encourage lawyers in private practice to join the CPS. The CPS advertises and has very flexible arrangements for extended leave. That is particularly advantageous to married women who may go on maternity leave and then want to stay away for longer. We encourage outside people to apply to the CPS. No stigma will attach to those who left service some time ago.

International Court of Justice

Mr. Tam Dalyell: How many cases he has been involved in within the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice at The Hague in the last 12 months. [83879]

The Attorney-General: I represented the United Kingdom on 10, 11 and 12 May in proceedings brought before the International Court of Justice by Yugoslavia against the United Kingdom and nine other NATO States. My hon. Friend asked about cases "within the jurisdiction" of the ICJ. The question whether the Court has jurisdiction over Yugoslavia's claims against the UK and the other defendants is one of the central issues that the Court has to determine.
I have also followed developments in the case brought by Libya against the United Kingdom and the United States arising from the tragedy over Lockerbie in 1988, but I have not myself been directly involved before the Court in that case.

Mr. Dalyell: As cluster bombs are not very different from landmines, on which there has been international legislation—much to the credit of this Government—has anything been said about the legality of the use of cluster bombs? In particular, was either the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General consulted about the dropping of cluster bombs on the centre of the city of Nis? Was either of them told of the proximity of a hospital in Belgrade to a target before permission was given, on the legal basis on which I understand they are consulted, for the attack to go ahead, with the tragic resulting death of patients?

The Attorney-General: The matters that my hon. Friend raises are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I confirm that I have offered advice to colleagues in relation to some of the legal issues that have arisen during the process of approving targets for attack by UK forces. I am unwilling

to be drawn further. I am confident that the Government and UK forces act in accordance with international law. Legal advice is available at every level of the process of approving targets for attack.

Court of Appeal

Mr. Dominic Grieve: How many unduly lenient sentences he has referred to the Court of Appeal since 1 May 1997. [83880]

The Attorney-General: Since 1 May 1997, leave has been sought in respect of 171 offenders, and 117 applications have been heard. Leave was granted in 112 applications and the sentence increased in 96, which is 83.4 per cent. of references that have been heard.

Mr. Grieve: Does the Attorney-General consider that those figures reflect satisfactorily on the sentencing system in this country, or does he think that the number of cases on which he sought to make reference suggests that uniformity of sentencing is not being properly achieved?

The Attorney-General: Only a tiny proportion of cases before the Crown courts are referred. They are those in which it is necessary so to do to ensure that public confidence is maintained. Over the years, the figures have been roughly the same; there was a dip in 1996 and 1997, and an increase in 1998 to a figure nearer to what it used to be in 1995. Generally, the figure is about the same. I believe that that is right and that it is shown in the results in the figures from the Court of Appeal that I have already given.

Business of the House

Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows.
MONDAY 24 MAY—Until about 7 o'clock, Second Reading of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [Lords].
Motion to approve the second report from the Modernisation Committee on sittings of the House in Westminster Hall.
TUESDAY 25 MAY—Debate on the European Union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House—the pre-Cologne debate.
WEDNESDAY 26 MAY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House which will include the usual three hour pre-recess debate.
Motion to approve the first report from the Administration Committee on the proposal to re-open the line of route during the summer adjournment.
Motion relating to Members' travel to EU institutions.
Motion on financial assistance to Opposition parties.
Motion on quorum of concurrent meetings of Select Committees.
Motion on the parliamentary contributory pension fund.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The provisional business for the first week back after the Whitsun recess will be as follows:
TUESDAY 8 JUNE—Second Reading of the Pollution Prevention and Control Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 9 JUNE—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Health Bill.
THURSDAY 10 JUNE—There will be a debate on defence in the world on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 11 JUNE—Private Members' Bills.

Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and for an indication of the business for the week after the Whitsun recess. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that she has not lost sight of the promised debate on the House of Lords White Paper? That debate could have been held today, but for the Government's shameful decision to guillotine the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.
Will the Government table any amendments to the Health Bill before we rise next week, so that Members and people outside the House have ample opportunity to respond to them? What has happened to the Food Standards Bill, which completed its passage through a Special Standing Committee some time ago and is now languishing on some parliamentary shelf?
The House is expecting several statements in the near future: on genetically modified foods, drugs and freedom of information. We shall also expect to be updated on Kosovo before we rise. Will the Leader of the House indicate when we might expect which announcements? In relation to genetically modified foods, the Government will want to address the widely held belief, confirmed in the leaked letter to Friends of the Earth, that the Government are obsessed with presentation at the expense of policy.
Last week, I asked the Leader of the House if she would
assure the House that if there are any important changes in Government policy next week, the appropriate Minister will make a statement to the House?"—[Official Report, 13 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 416.]
That was in connection with the Government's U-turn on the Tote. The right hon. Lady rejected the charge of discourtesy, but was not insult added to injury by the behaviour of the Home Secretary yesterday, when he announced a new policy—the opposite of the previous one—on the "Today" programme? Has the right hon. Lady read what Madam Speaker said yesterday about the matter? She stated:

The House knows that I deprecate statements that are made in the written press or in the media before they come to House. I do so very much again today."—[Official Report, 19 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 1074–75.]
Will the right hon. Lady now apologise to the House on behalf of the Government?

Mrs. Beckett: First, may I apologise to the House for something completely different? Two pages of the business statement were stuck together and I did not tell the House something that I am sure it wishes passionately to know.
On Wednesday 9 June, there will be a debate on the global navigation satellite system in European Standing Committee A. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 9 June:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: 6528/99, Global Navigation Satellite System; Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 34-xvii;(1998–99).]
I apologise for denying the House that important information.
I have not lost sight of the Lords White Paper, and of course we will return to that matter. As for what the right hon. Gentleman called the shameful decision to guillotine the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, I have looked for the most notable and sensible precedents to follow. In 1985–86, when the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member and a supporter were passing major social security legislation—which was more substantial even than the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill—

Mr. Eric Forth: That was then, this is now.

Mrs. Beckett: Yes. The then Government guillotined the Bill in Committee and provided two days on the Floor of the House to debate the remaining stages and the


Third Reading. That amounted to some 13 hours in which to discuss legislation that covered literally every kind of benefit from the cradle to the grave.
In this instance, the Government provided one day's debate on the Floor of the House and were not asked to allocate more time. There were 13 hours of debate on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill on that one day, so we have already discussed the legislation for the same amount of time as was allocated in 1985–86. The Government have now provided another full day for debate. It is quite clear that we are providing more than adequate time for the debate should the Opposition wish to use it actually to debate the Bill—but that is a matter for them.
The right hon. Gentleman asked that amendments to the Health Bill be tabled next week. I cannot give him that assurance today because I genuinely do not know, however, I shall certainly draw his observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Government are currently finalising the Food Standards Bill in light of public consultation and the report of discussions in the Food Standards Select Committee. We aim to introduce the legislation in this Session if time is available.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about a string of things—GM foods, drugs, freedom of information and Kosovo—and inquired as to when announcements might be made. We will endeavour to make as many announcements as we can before the recess. In response to the right hon. Gentleman's observations about presentation rather than policy and the comments by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen on the radio this morning, I simply point out that the document which has been leaked—and about which there has been much excitement—states that it is important to write publications in clear language so that people can understand what is said. I do not think there is anything revolutionary about that—especially as the original memo, which is quoted in the Friends of the Earth press release, goes on to say:
Ministers needed to guard against the charge that the Government was seeking to influence the findings of the paper.
It must be quite obvious that the Government are trying only to make policy clear. There does not seem to be anything in that document other than sheer common sense.
As for the matter of statements, the Government endeavour at all times to ensure that important statements are made to the House. The right hon. Gentleman referred to statements being made outside the House, and I understand that hon. Members sometimes wish to explore subjects more fully. However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did announce the policy change to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—which, I might add, was leaked extensively—in a written parliamentary question. So it was already announced to the House: there was simply no statement. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), apologised fully to the House yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman and all Opposition Members are perfectly well aware that the Home Secretary is assiduous in his courtesy to the House and in his attempts to ensure that the House is informed

properly. As to the Opposition's pretence that the Government somehow withhold statements from the House—

Mr. Forth: Yes.

Mrs. Beckett: I do wish that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) could possess his soul in some slight silence—Whips are normally silent. [Interruption.] I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon: it was his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on that occasion.
In the 1992–93 Session, the then Government made some 96 statements about Government policy. In the equivalent period this Session, this Government have made 117.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: The Leader of the House will have heard about the bombing of a hospital in Belgrade last night, in which three people were killed and members of staff and patients were injured. Given the increasing number of civilians who are being killed, and the growing belief that NATO is running out of military targets and that there could be more such tragedies, will the Government initiate a debate before the recess on the effects of the bombing on the civilian population in Yugoslavia, both in Serbia and in Kosovo?

Mrs. Beckett: Everyone in the House regrets and deeply deplores the fact that there have been civilian casualties. My hon. Friend refers to the belief that NATO is running out of military targets. I understand—I believe that this is not contested—that it is clear that the target was a military barracks not far from the hospital, and possibly one of the bombs aimed at those barracks went astray. As to the effects of that, at the moment we have only limited information because the Serbian Government are not allowing people into the area. Clearly, we shall make every attempt to find out as much information as possible.
I cannot offer my hon. Friend a special debate on that particular aspect of the matter, but I assure her that the Government will continue to make statements and find time for debates on all the issues surrounding that action.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Leader of the House recognise that there is widespread and genuine confusion about the Government's position on genetically modified food and crops? Every day, we seem to receive conflicting reports. Will she arrange for a full statement and a full debate so that we can find out precisely what action the Government intend to take on those extremely important issues? Those are of concern not only to farmers and consumers, but to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will the right hon. Lady ask the Prime Minister to reconsider the proposition put before him by my party that this is a classic case that the royal commission on environmental pollution, which has already done useful work on the subject, could be asked to revisit?
We understand why the Government did not make the statement that was expected today on the draft Bill on freedom of information. We have all been waiting so long for that statement that two or three days' delay is not a disaster. However, will the right hon. Lady now guarantee


that there will be a statement when the draft Bill is published, which we anticipate will be next week, and that there will be a recognition of the concern that the original intentions set out by the Home Secretary appear to have been diluted?
Will the right hon. Lady agree also that the situation in Scotland—and, for all I know, in Wales—means that it is extremely important for us to make progress on that matter in this House? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the new Minister for Justice in Scotland, may be able to make more progress on it than is being made in this Parliament.
Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that open government and freedom of information in relation to the activities of the European institutions will also be addressed, albeit separately?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman asked about the conflicting reports and confusion about GM foods and crops. I agree that there is more confusion than there should be, but that is because people seem to want to sow confusion. For example, I heard such reports from people in the news media and, I am sorry to say, normally respected organisations that are campaigning on this matter.
The Government chief scientist was extensively quoted this morning, and he has made it plain that he was misquoted and misreported. I have his full letter before me in which he refers to what he believes is the only scientifically defensible position and says:
I do not see a problem"—
with the Government's stance. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the letter has been reported in a way that seeks to imply, and indeed asserts, that the Government chief scientist is in dispute with the Government's position.

Mr. John Bercow: He is.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but he is talking through the back of his neck. He should read the letter, the first line of which says:
I do not see a problem here".

Mr. James Paice: I have the letter.

Mrs. Beckett: Well, if the hon. Gentleman has the letter, I suggest that he reads it and digests its contents. I have read it all, and it clearly says that there is no dispute about the science and with the Government's position.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) asked about referring the matter to the royal commission, but of course the Science and Technology Select Committee has reported on the matter this week, and we are studying all the reports and considering the recommendations. However, I believe that the last thing that any of us wants to do is to kick into the long grass a sensible debate on the science of this matter, which is more than necessary and becomes more necessary with every day that misleading statements are made by the various campaigners on the issue.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to guarantee a statement on the freedom of information Bill, and I do so. I can also tell him that I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends, as always, to explain with absolute clarity the position that the Government are taking and why he has reached his decisions.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to take account of the issue of the principles of open government with regard to EU policy and so on. To the extent that that is within this Government's control, we do so.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware of increasing speculation in the United Kingdom and in other countries in Europe about the future of the Western European Union, especially the rumour that it might be integrated into the European Union? Does she accept that that issue should be debated in the House? She may argue that there are two opportunities in the next two parliamentary weeks to do so, but I urge her to hold a special debate so that we may debate that specific issue and the wider issue of European security.

Mrs. Beckett: I have a faint recollection of having heard rumours to that effect from time to time over the years, which have always turned out to be unfounded press speculation. I fear that I cannot offer my hon. Friend a special debate on the matter, although I understand its importance. However, I draw to his attention the fact that there is to be a debate on the European Union next Tuesday. It will focus on the pre-Cologne Council, but there is no reason why the matters raised by my hon. Friend may not be relevant—subject to Madam Speaker's opinion. In addition, I have just announced that there is to be a debate on defence in the world just after the recess, so that might provide another opportunity to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Peter Brooke: As we enter the final straight towards the millennium, we realise that some people are apparently less well prepared than they should be in terms of the millennium bug. When that is pointed out, however, they say that that criticism is based on out-of-date information. Would the Leader of the House therefore contemplate accelerating the frequency of the admirable reports that she gives to the House, so that unnecessary apprehensions are not created?

Mrs. Beckett: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have every intention of doing so. The next statement is due in the relatively near future, and I intend thereafter to make monthly updating statements to the House.

Dr. Tony Wright: My right hon. Friend will know that, over the years, hon. Members from both sides of the House have asked whether, when statements are made, we might have the text a little earlier in the day—perhaps by noon on the day that the statement is to be made—so that questions can be more focused and more informed. Would not the statement on freedom of information be exactly the right occasion on which to institute such a new procedure?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but I have slight reservations, although obviously it


is a matter that could be considered. If I may say so without disrespect to any hon. Member on either side of the House, I would like to be absolutely and immediately confident that producing a copy of a statement at an earlier time would not mean that its precise details appeared in the news media before it was made in the House. I consider that it would be difficult to have such absolute confidence and certainty about that, but I will bear in mind that suggestion.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on national health service trust management? I do not know whether she is aware that three non-executive directors of the Guild health care trust in Preston exposed mismanagement of that trust by the chief executive, which was brought to light in an independent report entitled, "The Care and Treatment of Daniel Holden." The chief executive was suspended by the trust board. There was a further investigation, by an independent panel, which endorsed that action and confirmed that the trust had been mismanaged. The trust was told, via the regional office, by the Secretary of State for Health, that the three non-executive directors should resign, and that, if they did not, they would be sacked to give the trust a fresh start.

Madam Speaker: A question, please.

Mr. Evans: Yes, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, the three non-executive directors were sacked. My great fear—I wonder whether the Leader of the House agrees—is that the morale of non-executive directors throughout the country will be affected by that decision.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the morale of non-executive directors but, to be honest, I do not see why that should be affected. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it plain at a much earlier stage that he felt that, sadly, it was not in the interests of the trust or of the health service as a whole for the members of the previous team to stay in post. He invited them to resign, and they were not willing to do so. These are clearly special circumstances and we must all hope that they are unique.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), the Leader of the House said that not very much is known about the tragic hospital bombing in Belgrade. If there is such a lack of information, should not bombing stop, or should not there at least be a pause? In particular, could not a statement be made on Monday, when a little more will be known about the facts?

Mrs. Beckett: The House understands my hon. Friend's strong views on this matter and I accept that he is saying that, on those grounds and on this occasion, there should be a pause in the bombing. I simply say to him, however, that there are different views on it, which are held by people in all good conscience, and draw to his attention what I understand to be the recent remarks of the Catholic Archbishop of Belgrade, who said that any pause in NATO action would be taken by President Milosevic as a sign of weakness.

Mr. Michael Jack: A moment ago, the Leader of the House was dismissive of the request made by my

hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) for a special debate on what has been happening at the Guild health care trust in Preston. In the light of her specific comments on the unique nature of this matter, may I press her to arrange for either an oral or a written statement, before the House rises for the Whitsun recess, to deal with those factors?
The sacked non-executive directors, who were acting in their capacity as whistleblowers on mismanagement, feel that their circumstances draw attention to the role of non-executive directors who raise certain issues and find themselves in the firing line of the Secretary of State. We need a statement urgently to clarify that matter.

Mrs. Beckett: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, no doubt inadvertently, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) did not ask for a debate on that specific matter? He did not get round to that. I am afraid that I cannot find time for an extra and specific debate, but I can of course draw to his attention the fact that there is a pre-recess debate on Wednesday, in which any matter can be raised.

Mr. David Chaytor: In view of the publication earlier this week of the long-awaited and excellent White Paper on sustainable development—which has profound implications for Government policy on both social exclusion and environmental protection—can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on this issue in the near future, particularly as no questions have been asked in the House, no Government statements have been made on it and there has been very little interest in the media?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to say that the White Paper will have profound implications, and it also merits most careful and thorough consideration and debate. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in the near future, although, again, he may be able to raise the matter in the pre-recess debate and I am sure that the House will return to it.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Given that, for better or for worse, the penalty of capital punishment for murder was abandoned many years ago, will the Leader of the House find time for a statement, either by the Home Secretary or by one of the Law Officers, on why those paratroopers who are, rightly or wrongly, accused of murder on Bloody Sunday will be required to sign their own death warrants in the forthcoming inquiry by revealing their full identities to the public at large and to the terrorists in particular?

Mrs. Beckett: That point could have been raised during questions to the Attorney-General, which have just taken place. I am always hesitant about dealing with matters that might in any way be sub judice, but I will draw the hon. Gentleman's observations to the attention of the relevant Minister.

Mr. Martin Salter: Is my right hon. Friend aware of reports that three British National party candidates in the forthcoming European elections have submitted nomination papers bearing false addresses in order to qualify for a party political broadcast and an election freepost to 20 million households at


public expense? Does she not agree that there is an urgent need for the House to review election law, to prevent our democratic processes from being subverted by racist and fascist organisations seeking a platform for their vile and odious views?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right—and I am pleased to note that the whole House agrees with him.
I am aware of the reports to which my hon. Friend refers, and I have little doubt that they are being studied with great attention, even as we speak. As my hon. Friend will know, the Home Office is in any case conducting an election review, and this is exactly the kind of matter that it will be studying. As my hon. Friend says, we need to ensure that it cannot happen again.

Mr. Michael Fallon: May we have an early debate on the rising cost of special advisers? The cost is now some £3.9 million a year, double the amount during the last year of Conservative government. May we also discuss the new practice of political advisers going on foreign jaunts with their Ministers? We are talking about 170 trips at public expense. How would Ministers defend this new kind of political tourism?

Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that we are likely to discuss that. I can even suggest a good slot: it can be discussed when we debate the financing of the Opposition parties.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the Leader of the House examine the order of questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland next Wednesday? Will she confirm my estimate that there will be no opportunity for the Secretary of State to make a statement about the conduct of Lord Saville's inquiry—indeed, the shameful conduct of that inquiry? Will she arrange for the Secretary of State to make a statement, hopefully announcing the winding up of the inquiry, given that Lord Saville has said that there will now be a lack of candour, and that the inquiry cannot possibly add anything to Lord Widgery's original inquiry?

Mrs. Beckett: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is well aware, what comes out of the questions hat is a mixture of chance and what hon. Members have tabled. However, I have already undertaken to draw the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I will do the same with his observations.

Mr. Eric Forth: May we, as a matter of urgency, have a debate on early-day motion 669?
[That this House deplores the fact that the Right honourable Member for Cardiff South and Penarth is being allowed to hold simultaneously the posts of Secretary of State for Wales and First Minister for Wales; believes that the existence of such a dual mandate creates an unacceptable conflict of interests; and deplores the fact that the total salary payable to the Right honourable Member for Cardiff South and Penarth as an honourable

Member, Member of the National Assembly for Wales, Secretary of State for Wales and First Minister for Wales at £187,122 is higher than that paid to the Prime Minister and is amongst the highest remuneration of a public servant in the United Kingdom despite the fact that there is nothing the Right honourable Member can do as First Minister for Wales that he cannot do as Secretary of State for Wales.]
The Leader of the House will be aware of—and may well have participated in, over the years—the ritual condemnations by Labour Members of "fat cats" and Members of Parliament who hold several jobs. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is a Member of the Welsh Assembly, Secretary of State for Wales and First Minister for Wales. That is four jobs, by my reckoning. Will the right hon. Lady give us an opportunity to discuss how on earth any individual, no matter how worthy, can hold four important jobs and justify a salary of £187,000 a year?

Mrs. Beckett: As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), has already made it plain that he has no intention of drawing more than his present salary.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the difficulties in which the Paymaster General found herself during this morning's sitting of the Finance Bill Standing Committee, in regard to changes to widows bereavement allowances? In the light of the confusion that the Paymaster General allowed to be created, is this not an opportune time for the Chancellor to make a statement clarifying the position? Undoubtedly, in a forthcoming year, many tens of thousands of widows will suffer because of the Government's changes to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I am not aware of what happened in Committee this morning and, I say with respect to the hon. Gentleman, have some doubt about taking at face value Conservative Members' observation that there was confusion. I am certain that there will not be confusion about Government policy. I am also clear that the Government's changes are, for the first time, beginning to ensure that our reformed welfare system resembles the work and family patterns of today, as opposed to those of 50 years ago.
With regard to the overall approach and treatment of widows, I am mindful, for example, that the bereavement allowance, which was introduced by the Conservative party in 1986 to replace an allowance that was paid over six months, was introduced at a lower rate. It cut the funding that was made available to widows; it was introduced at a level of £1,000. During the rest of the 13 years that the Conservative party was in power, it never increased it by so much as a ha'penny, whereas we are about to double it, so we do not need to listen to strictures from Conservative Members about penalties on widows.

Mr. Robert Syms: Will the Leader of the House put some pressure on the new Secretary of State for Scotland to come to the House to answer questions on the "Partnership for Scotland" document which has been agreed between the Labour party and the Liberal


Democrats as a basis for running the Scottish Parliament? I have been looking through it and I am sure that it has major financial implications for the United Kingdom taxpayer. I am very anxious that we should protect the UK taxpayer and, indeed, my English constituents from paying additional costs north of the border following that agreement with the Liberal Democrats.

Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has noticed that it is Scottish questions on Tuesday and he will be able to ask the Secretary of State himself.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster or, indeed, the Prime Minister to come to the House to explain why No. 10 Downing street leaked the announcement of the appointment of the poet laureate, thus ruining what was going to be an important occasion next week, and at the same time gratuitously insulting the Queen?

Mrs. Beckett: It is my understanding that that is not what happened at all. As I understand it, the announcement was made through No. 10 that the Queen had approved the appointment of the poet laureate. That is the norm and is the way in which all such previous announcements have been made.

Mr. John Bercow: Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the reply by the Leader of the House, will she confirm that, if what she says is right—namely, that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) intends to take only the salary that is currently received by his Cabinet colleagues—there is an excess of £97,122 a year? Will she confirm that that money will in no circumstances be taken? Furthermore, does she not agree that, if we have a debate or statement on the subject, it will afford to the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity to confirm that, far from wasting the money by directing it back to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to misuse, he will instead donate it to worthy charities?

Mrs. Beckett: That is an ingenious suggestion. I am sure that, somewhere in his comments, the hon. Gentleman meant to welcome the restraint that has been shown by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales—and, indeed, all those in the Cabinet—in taking substantially less than the pay to which they are entitled, unlike, I fear, the Leader of the Opposition. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, when my right hon. Friend says that he will not take any more than the salary that other members of the Cabinet are drawing, that is precisely what he means. As to the suggestion that my right hon. Friend should draw the rest of it and give it to charity, I just wish that I thought that Conservative Members would take that at face value if he did.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: May we have an early opportunity to debate Home Office proposals to restrict trial by jury? Will the right hon. Lady arrange for the Home Secretary to come to the House to give a statement, especially in light of the fact that, as late as

February 1997, he was saying that such proposals were not only wholly wrong, but short-sighted and likely to prove ineffective?

Mrs. Beckett: We have already done that; there was an answer to a private notice question yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made his position plain. He has said openly and honestly that that was the view that he expressed in 1997, that he has given the matter further consideration and that he has changed his mind. He has dealt with one of the main anxieties at that time—that there was no appeal against a decision about the form of trial—so the matter is plain. While no doubt the matter can be raised from time to time during Home Office affairs, there is no reason for extra time on it now.

Mr. Norman Baker: I should like to know when we are to have the statement on GM crops and GM food. I suggest that it should be sooner rather than later given that the Government's policy is unravelling at a rate of knots. Will that statement deal with the biotechnology presentation group—the spin unit—which no one had heard about until yesterday? Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that the terms of reference, dates of meetings and minutes of that spin unit will be published for all to see? Will she give a categoric assurance that, contrary to the implication in that leaked letter, there will be no attempt by Ministers to alter in any way, shape or form the recommendations from the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser?

Mrs. Beckett: First, there is no such thing as a spin unit. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked me to insist that there will be no attempt to interfere. If the hon. Gentleman read the leaked document, he would see that it says plainly that there is no attempt by Ministers to interfere or even to appear to interfere. All that is intended is that there should be as clear a presentation of policy as possible. Clearly, that is much needed so that hon. Members such as the hon. Gentleman do not continue to insist that our policy is unravelling in the face of a letter which says quite clearly that the policy is correct.

Mr. Paice: Will the right hon. Lady reconsider this business of genetically modified crops and have a full day's debate, not just a statement, whenever that may be? The responsible Minister could then account for why the document to which we have just referred says that the
revised draft should be cleared by a future meeting of the presentation group.
That refers to the recommendations of the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser. If that draft has to be cleared, how can the right hon. Lady guarantee that there will be no power to interfere with it? The relevant Minister would also be able to deal with the final point in Sir Robert May's letter, to which we have also referred and from which the right hon. Lady quoted earlier. Having just said that he does not see how Ministers could contemplate giving permission for commercial release of GM crops until January 2003 at the earliest, Sir Robert May went on to say:
Obviously I could have written a shorter letter by just saying that I agreed with this sentence, right from the start!!


If that is the case, will the right hon. Lady point out when and where any Government Minister has said that?

Mrs. Beckett: The Minister for the Environment has said precisely that.

Mr. Paice: He has not.

Mrs. Beckett: He has said that. I am sorry, but if the hon. Gentleman did not hear him, that is his problem. I shall come back to whether he has put a date on it. On the issue of why the matter should be cleared at a future meeting by people such as the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser, it is precisely in order to ensure that what is said is accurate, is in no way misleading and is scientifically sound. I do not believe that Ministers in the previous Government did not have proper and sensible arrangements for ensuring that what was said was agreed and sound. If they did not, it certainly accounts for the perceived incompetence that they displayed for so long.
I have read the last paragraph of the letter—I have read the whole letter. In the last paragraph, the chief scientific adviser says that he could have agreed with that sentence about GM crops "covered by this research." The reason for the previous page to that letter is that he points out that there are more GM crops to be considered than just those covered by the research. He says that there is no point in having a simple date or a simple moratorium—such as that being called for by some campaigners—because some GM foods might require longer periods of experimental evidence and others might require shorter periods. The request is irrelevant and a waste of time. He does not use those words, but he makes it clear that there is no scientific justification for saying, "Let us have it on that date." I cannot imagine how anyone can read his letter and read into it anything other than that.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Last week, a written answer gave a brief account of the outcome of the ministerial meeting of the European Space Agency. As the Leader of the House will know, that was the first such ministerial meeting since 1995. I hope that she will find time for a debate on space policy, which is so important for British industries. We need to know the Government's thinking and plans on space policy, but have not had an opportunity to debate the matter since they took office.

Mrs. Beckett: I do not remember precisely everything that we debated in our first year in office, but think that the hon. Lady may well be right to say that there has not been a major debate on space policy for quite some time. I understand the interest in the matter. She might try to work it into the debate on the global navigation satellite system—in European Standing Committee A, should she care to attend. Nevertheless, despite understanding the issues' importance, I cannot undertake to find time in the near future to debate them in the House.

Mr. Bercow: Sort it!

Madam Speaker: Mr. Bercow, I want no sedentary comments.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: In the light of the Prime Minister's repeated failure to give clear answers on the Government's willingness, or otherwise, to hold a referendum before they have established clear rules for referendums, will the Leader of the House make time for either a statement or, preferably, a debate on the question whether the Government will guarantee not to hold any referendum until they have implemented the draft legislation that they are promising to bring before the House?

Mrs. Beckett: I am not aware of any confusion on the matter; the Government have always made the position clear. We established the Neill committee, and we take its recommendations, which we are studying, very seriously. In due course, we shall come forward with proposals and—undoubtedly, if it is required—with legislative change.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Lady declined to give the apology for which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) asked in respect of yesterday's rather shocking episode about the statement on jury trial. She said that we had an apology yesterday. May I respectfully point out that what appears in column 1066 of Hansard is certainly not an apology to the House? Will she make such an apology? It really is deeply regrettable that such an announcement was slipped out in the way that it was. Will she also have a word with the Prime Minister and tell him that what the Government need is not an enforcer but a plumber?

Mrs. Beckett: I have never come across a Government who did not need plumbers. As for the apology, I simply said that it was my understanding that, yesterday, the House received a very full apology from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. Again, I remind the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the matter was dealt with and a statement was made to the House in a written parliamentary answer. Of course, if there are those who feel that there was insufficient opportunity to debate the issue, that is always a matter of concern. However, yesterday, Madam Speaker did the House the courtesy of finding time to raise it by granting the private notice question.

Personal Statement

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I rise to make an apology to the House.
The Select Committee on Standards and Privileges has investigated a complaint against me and found that my entry in the Register of Members' Interests was inadequate and incomplete. I fully accept the way in which the complaint was investigated and the Committee's conclusions. I am most grateful to the Committee for giving me the opportunity to answer its questions in person. The omissions in my entry were due to an oversight on my part. I accept the Committee's findings. I make no excuses, and I offer my most sincere apologies to the House.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mrs. Gorman; the House is most appreciative.

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill—

Order of consideration

1. The Bill, as amended, shall be further considered in the following order, namely amendments relating to Clauses 53 to 56; remaining New Clauses; amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 6, Schedule 1, Clauses 7 to 16, Schedule 2, Clause 17, Schedule 3, Clauses 18 and 19, Schedule 4, Clauses 20 to 29, Schedule 5, Clauses 30 to 44, Schedule 6, Clauses 45 to 50, Schedule 7, Clauses 51 and 52, Clauses 57 to 61, Schedule 8, Clauses 62 to 64, Schedule 9, Clause 65, Schedule 10, Clauses 66 to 70, Schedule 11 and Clause 71; New Schedules; amendments relating to Clauses 72 and 73, Schedule 12, Clauses 74 to 76, Schedule 13 and Clauses 77 to 79.

Timetable

2.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration in respect of amendments relating to Clauses 53 to 56 shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

(2) The remaining proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

Questions to be put

3.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 2(1) the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question that any remaining amendments to Clauses 53 to 56 standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown be made to the Bill;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(2) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 2(2) the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown be made to the Bill;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

Miscellaneous

4. Standing Order 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at today's sitting, and the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House.

5. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on the Bill.

6. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.

7. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.

8. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.

9. If at today's sitting a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (as that Standing Order has effect in accordance with the Order of the House [16th December 1998]) stands over to Four o'clock and proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.

10. If the House is adjourned at today's sitting, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

I shall speak to the motion as briefly as possible, as I sense that both sides of the House want to get on and discuss the main business before us—which is the resumed consideration of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, and particularly the Government's proposals on disability benefits.
However, I must point out that after 13 hours of debate on Monday, we had completed consideration of less than half the amendments down for discussion. I made it clear the following day that the Government wished to bring the matter back to the House at the earliest opportunity and were keen to discuss our proposals—which will improve the condition of many disabled people—in prime time. By bringing them back today, when the House sits during the day, we shall ensure that the debate takes place in prime time. It is in the interests of the House and the country that people should understand exactly what the Government are proposing.
The Bill was in Committee for more than 65 hours and 25 sittings. That is the most sittings that a social security Bill has had for 10 years. There were 180 Opposition amendments. We spent 13 hours in debate on Monday. A lot of that debate was on matters on which the Opposition apparently supported us, such as extending maternity allowance to people who previously did not get it. We spent two and a quarter hours on the single work-focused gateway, which the Opposition apparently support. We spent some considerable time discussing our proposals for extending bereavement benefits before the Opposition withdrew their amendment.
At no point did the Opposition ask us for more time to discuss the Bill. We would have been happy to timetable the Report stage over two days rather than one. I stress again that I am more than happy to set out the Government's proposals, which will bring more help to severely disabled young people and to those who can work and want to do so, while bringing the benefit system up to date to reflect changing conditions. This wide-ranging welfare reform Bill implements the first stage of our pensions proposals, extends benefits to people who lose their spouse and have young children, and reforms disability benefits, as well as modernising the workings of the social security system. Those are all matters that the majority of the people in the country and in the House will support.
If we can dispose of the debate on the guillotine motion quickly, the House will have four and a half hours to debate these important matters. That is probably longer than we would have had if there had not been a guillotine. I am anxious that all hon. Members should have as much opportunity as possible to put their point of view. If I am lucky enough to catch your eye later in the afternoon, Madam Speaker, I shall be happy to respond to the points that are put.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State said that the Bill had one of the longest Committee stages in recent years. That is not surprising. This huge Bill is essentially four Bills in one, so that is no justification for the guillotine.
I intend to be brief, because we do not want to take too much time from the key debates on the proposals. However, it is important to point out that it was unnecessary for the Government to push the guillotine forward. The Secretary of State said that we could have asked for extra time, but we did not need extra time. We would have completed the consideration of the amendments in good time in one sitting.
It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that the situation is everybody else's fault. He carried out one-to-one briefings with the press lobby, winding up the process by saying that there would be no discussion and no concessions, that the Government would take the so-called rebels head-on, that there would be a real clash and that he was looking forward to it. We have a bargain basement Arnold Schwarzenegger who has pumped up the debate; but half way through consideration, he cut and ran, failing to face up to a serious debate.
The Secretary of State now blames everyone else. Apparently, we were going to bump the Kosovo debate the following day or we were filibustering the debate.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Well, a glance at the amendments reinforces the point that the Government tabled new clauses on three new subjects that had had no previous consideration. Two of them—on very big subjects—were tabled at the last moment. One—which changed the relationship of people with their pension funds in insolvency—was dramatic, and changed the nature of the Bill. The second, and perhaps most important, was the clause that we believe will destroy the livelihoods of self-employed people, particularly those in the information technology industry.
The last section of the clause, which is all about giving powers to the Treasury, states that
the Treasury may with the concurrence of the Secretary of State by order make such modifications of the preceding provisions of this section as the Treasury think appropriate for that purpose.
Those powers are vast, and mean that the Treasury can change anything it likes—at a whim, by order. No wonder we needed to debate those matters, and the Government tabled those new clauses ahead of everything else. The Leader of the House told us that these were minor considerations. They were not.
We heard earlier that it was a huge Henry VIII clause, but it is not so much Henry VIII as Louis XIV. The Prime Minister, Louis XIV himself, is the absolute monarch,

ruling all he surveys. This is a clause in his mind and his body. He had his Chancellor going around that night on one-to-ones with the Secretary of State, leaning on those of his colleagues who took a different view. The Chancellor, the cardinal, is responsible to Louis XIV, but the Secretary of State is the man in the iron mask.
So busy was the Secretary of State with the Chancellor that he managed to come into the Chamber for this vital Bill—his Bill—for four minutes and 23 seconds out of 14 hours. But who is counting? The Secretary of State made an appearance like a rabbit and went out like a rabbit when it was time for a one-to-one.
After all that, the right hon. Gentleman has the cheek to come here and blame everybody else—the man who briefed and built up has now been blown away. He may discover that, as in all one-to-ones, it is good to talk, but it is also good to listen. The Secretary of State has not been listening. He did not listen to his advisory forum, all of whom resigned in disgust; he is not listening to his colleagues who have a problem with the proposals; and he is not listening to the Opposition. If he were listening more than lecturing, he might have learned of the serious problems with his proposals.
After such incompetence—and with the Secretary of State now standing in the shadow of the only guillotine that really matters to him—I suggest that he looks to the famous lines of Sydney Carton:
It is a far, far better rest I go to than I have ever known.
The Government are a shambles and out of control. The guillotine today is a sign of the bully—all bluster and bravado, but when it comes to the crunch, no backbone.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I strongly support this guillotine motion, and I would like to explain why—particularly to my hon. Friends, all of whose views I respect on this matter of great importance.
I look at this matter in the context of my experience of previous Labour Governments with previous contentious issues, such as the reform of the House of Lords in the 1966 Parliament. At that time, it was not opposition from Conservatives or Liberals, but disagreement within our own party that led to the reform of the House of Lords being frustrated and prevented. It has had to be resuscitated 30 years later by a Government so concerned about it that they have had to resort to the desperate measure of appointing me as a member of a royal commission to look at it.
Labour Members—Opposition Members could not have done it—inserted in the original Scottish and Welsh devolution legislation the 40 per cent. referendum provision that led to the fall of the Labour Government, 18 years of Conservative government and, incidentally, a 20-year delay in the introduction of devolution.
We are to debate a major issue after we approve the guillotine. I respect fully the views of all my hon. Friends, but they should be aware that the Government will win today, regardless of Labour Members' votes against or abstentions. They will win because of the loyalty of the overwhelming majority of members of the parliamentary Labour party, including old lags such as myself.
What will be the consequence if there is a substantial failure among Labour Members to support the Government? Whatever our views, we will all go from


here tonight and campaign for our party in the European elections. If there is a substantial reduction in the Government's majority because of the views of some of my hon. Friends—and they are friends in both senses—who will be pleased?
The Government will not be pleased. My hon. Friends who have reservations or disagreements with the Government will not be pleased, because they will have lost. Who will be pleased? The BBC, which has set itself up as a kind of alternative Opposition party, will be pleased. It is waiting breathlessly for its news bulletins to be able to start with the headline, "Labour suffered a serious rebellion and setback in the House of Commons this afternoon."
Who else would benefit? Let us consider the Liberal Democrats who, we must never forget, voted with Margaret Thatcher to bring down the Labour Government who would have introduced devolution. They are responsible for Thatcherism, together with the Conservatives. There are quite a few pretty nice guys among Liberal Members of Parliament, but those of us who have nests of Liberal Democrats in our constituencies know that they are not the same thing at all. They are opportunists, fluttering from issue to issue and alighting like flies on garbage heaps.
The Liberal Democrats in our constituencies are waiting to prepare their grubby "Focus" leaflets to put through letter boxes. That is what they will do, regardless of the views of their Members of Parliament who, as I said, share the responsibility for 18 years of Thatcherism.
What about the Conservatives? If there is—as I trust that there will not be—a substantial reduction in the Government's majority this afternoon, that will bring the first smirks to their faces since May 1997. It will give great comfort to the people who are responsible for the entire problem facing the Government today, because the number of people on incapacity benefit today derives from the fiddling of the unemployment figures by the Conservative Government.
I do not decry in any way the sincerity with which my hon. Friends approach this issue. However, they should consider the consequences of their actions this afternoon, because I sat here for 18 years under a Conservative Government and I do not want another. Just look at that hypocritical rabble now. The Conservatives were responsible for the issue and they are trying to cash in on it, but they have offered no solutions. They are beaten and battered, but they are hoping to drag something out of this afternoon.

Mr. Paul Tyler: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is normally an eloquent advocate of parliamentary democracy. The argument that he has just advanced is that his colleagues on the Government Benches should not listen to their consciences or to the arguments, but should vote now and go home. I hope that Labour Members will realise that that is a jaundiced view from the right hon. Gentleman and may be influenced by the fact that on 6 May, more people voted Liberal Democrat in his constituency than voted Labour.
I shall not follow the two previous contributors with 30-year or even 300-year precedents. I wish to address the implications for the good management of business in this

House now, which is as important as this Bill. I must correct the Secretary of State: the principal Liberal Democrat spokesman on social security made it clear that we thought that it would be necessary to have two days of debate for Report and Third Reading, because in Committee, there was not a single Labour Member who took a view different from the Government's on the issues. Dissenting Labour Members could not put forward their views in Committee and would wish to do so on Report. That is why the proceedings are so important and why we need time.
I wish to offer a gentle and modest word of advice to the Secretary of State and his colleagues on the Front Bench. They should show a little bit less of their macho aggression towards those who will be pleased by what may happen this afternoon, towards those who are genuinely in receipt of disability benefits and towards the groups that represent them. They are listening to this debate carefully, because they want to know what has happened to the Labour Government whom many of them supported in 1997.
Surely the Government recognise that the attitude they have adopted is likely to cause more resentment, not less. A more thoughtful and responsive attitude would have been much more successful. What will the Secretary of State say to Labour Members who will have to go back to their constituencies this weekend and confess that they voted for a more devastating attack on the living standards of that particular group than even the Conservatives were prepared to make? That is the reality of the situation.
The guillotine should not have been necessary and the Secretary of State was wrong. Had the proceedings continued in the early hours of Tuesday morning, we could have had about 10 more hours of discussion without affecting the business on Tuesday. We could have dealt adequately with all the issues, including those that will be raised today by Labour Back Benchers. Now he is allowing us just six hours.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): rose—

Mr. Tyler: I shall not give way because we are being brief. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Nobody else has taken interventions and I shall not do so, because I wish to get on with the debate.

Mr. Blunkett: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I cannot have two Members standing at the same time.

Mr. Tyler: Nobody—no Minister and no Whip—ever explained on behalf of the Government why it was necessary to stop the debate at that hour in the morning on Tuesday. The guillotine should not have been necessary, because we could have continued on Tuesday morning and given adequate attention to the Bill.
It would be absurd for me to make an extensive speech at this stage, but I believe that the Government are wrong to try to steamroller the Bill through instead of sticking to the original proposal of a proper debate with plenty of time to enable all views to be heard. The Government will regret the impression that will be given by pursuing this course of action.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is quite wrong. The Government have not permitted six hours for debate on the Bill. They have in fact contemplated limiting debate to just three hours. The allocation of time motion is entitled to three hours in itself.

Ms Ann Coffey: Sit down and let us get on with it then.

Mr. Shepherd: No, I will not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When I call an hon. Member to speak, I expect him to be heard.

Mr. Shepherd: Those who shout "sit down" should reflect on who is placing the motion before the House. Who seeks to curtail debate?
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) gave us an old Stalinist, new Labour speech. His complaint that he had endured 18 years of Thatcher government reminded me that many Members think that we have had, as of 4 May, 20 years of Thatcher's principles and government.
The Government are utilising a guillotine to defeat proper debate on matters of conscience, judgment and the representative function. Across the Chamber, I see the nodding heads of the nodding donkeys. I have seen the same during 20 years in this House. The Government are seriously telling the House that around 60 Back-Bench Members have expressed dissent, but that they can be bundled out in one and a half hours. They are telling us that if they can shut up the House, there might be four and a half hours of debate. Notice how the Government are trying to swivel the finger of blame towards others when it points firmly at the Secretary of State who is proposing this extraordinary guillotine.
I want to take apart one of the Secretary of State's arguments. He announced that the Bill spent 65 hours in Committee. Many Members sitting here have served in Committees lasting well over 100 hours. The new fashion of Government is no longer to seek consent or even to settle for acquiescence. The Crown in Downing street is prepared to ram through, in just 90 minutes, contentions that are matters of conscience and the representative function.
Every hon. Member who votes for the guillotine will be saying that he or she accepts that he or she may have no freedom of speech to express his or her wishes and his or her judgment.

Kali Mountford: indicated dissent.

Mr. Shepherd: I see the hon. Lady baying at me, but if she reflects on what I am asking, she will see that this matter should be debated without a vicious guillotine. Members must weigh two propositions. Are they prepared to vote to deny themselves the ability to address these issues properly? That is the question that they must ask themselves. We shall see who goes through the Lobby, saying, on the one hand, "Yes we should not discuss this matter", but saying on the other hand, for the wider public, "We protest against this issue."
There is a fundamental contradiction in voting for the motion. We hold it in our hands to send a message to the Government that including guillotine motions in the time for consideration of the Bill—only six hours, including three for the guillotine—is deceitful. That deceit is intended to screw down proper debate and reasoned opposition. When the Secretary of State says that he has allowed six hours, we all know that that is phooey. It is a monstrous demonstration of the Executive's control over the representative body of the electorate of the United Kingdom.

Sir Richard Body: Over the past 40 years, I have debated many guillotine motions, but I have never been so saddened as I am on this occasion. All of us know that the true purpose of a guillotine is to suppress debate. There can be no other reason for one. On this occasion, there should be plenty of time, because no right hon. or hon. Member has no disabled people in his or her constituency.
The only way in which we can persuade the Government that this measure is unjust is by giving examples of case histories. By their nature, those must take some time to set out. To restrict debate is a cruel and a wrong device. I regret the guillotine motion enormously. Every Labour Member who wants to speak, and who will be prevented from expressing the concerns of constituents who will be affected by the Bill, must protest. However they vote later, they ought to vote against this motion, which is as wicked a guillotine as has ever fallen on the House.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) have always spoken against guillotine motions. They spent 18 years supporting the Tory Government, but arguing against those motions, so there is nothing new there. I understand their views, which are well held—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Members did not vote for them. Indeed, they were something of a bother to the previous Administration and they are entitled to take their view. However, it is important to point out that by 3am on Tuesday morning, we were halfway through all the amendments that had been put down for debate. It does not do anyone any good to discuss—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want any interventions from the Front Bench.

Mr. Darling: It does not do any of us any good to start debating such an important matter after being up all night, having discussed dozens of issues, and in that state of mind. I have been here only 13 years, but I know a filibuster when I see one and I saw what was happening on Monday night. We are ensuring this afternoon that the majority of the House has adequate time to debate what is an important issue.
I now turn to the two arguments of the two Opposition parties. On consultation, I must point out, as I dare say that it will come up later, that I am sorry that some members of the disability benefits forum decided that they could no longer serve. I was encouraged by the fact that


they wrote to me on the same day that they resigned, saying that despite their differences—there had been differences—they wanted to come back and discuss the detailed proposals as well as others. Some of the members of the forum have already been in the Department and one group is coming tomorrow afternoon to discuss service delivery. I am sorry that those people decided to leave, but the door is always open to anyone who wants to discuss any aspect of our welfare reform.
I have some sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). People voted for the Labour party in May 1997 because it created the welfare state in the 1940s, and we believe in the welfare state now. We were elected to clean up the mess that the Tory party left us. The Labour party has introduced measure after measure to combat poverty and the causes of poverty.
I can deal quite simply with the Liberal Democrats. One of the most important steps that we have taken to combat poverty for everyone, including disabled people, is the new deal. The Liberal Democrats opposed the means of funding that new deal. They cannot pretend today that they are the friends of those who have benefited from the new deal without admitting that, if they had had their way, there would have been no new deal in the first place.
I sense that the majority of Members in the House want to get on to debate the important matters before us. I am happy to do so and we should now proceed to do that, I hope without a Division and without further delay.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 377, Noes 145.

Division No. 190]
[1.43 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Ainger, Nick
Bradshaw, Ben


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Alexander, Douglas
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Allen, Graham



Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Browne, Desmond


Ashton, Joe
Buck, Ms Karen


Atherton, Ms Candy
Burden, Richard


Atkins, Charlotte
Burgon, Colin



Austin, John
Butler, Mrs Christine


Banks, Tony
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Barnes, Harry
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Battle, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beard, Nigel
Campbell—Savours, Dale


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cann, Jamie


Begg, Miss Anne
Caplin, Ivor


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Casale, Roger


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Caton, Martin


Bennett, Andrew F
Cawsey, Ian


Benton, Joe
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Chaytor, David


Berry, Roger
Clapham, Michael


Best, Harold
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Betts, Clive
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Blackman, Liz
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Blears, Ms Hazel

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Blizzard, Bob
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Boateng, Paul
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Borrow, David
Clelland, David


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Clwyd, Ann





Coaker, Vernon
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coleman, lain
Hepburn, Stephen


Colman, Tony
Heppell, John



Connarty, Michael
Hesford, Stephen


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Corbett, Robin
Hill, Keith


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Corston, Ms Jean
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cousins, Jim
Hoey, Kate


Cox, Tom
Hood, Jimmy


Cranston, Ross
Hoon, Geoffrey


Crausby, David
Hope, Phil


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cummings, John
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Howells, Dr Kim



Hoyle, Lindsay


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dalyell, Tam
Humble, Mrs Joan


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hurst, Alan


Darvill, Keith
Hutton, John


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davidson, Ian
Illsley, Eric


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Denham, John
Jamieson, David


Dismore, Andrew
Jenkins, Brian


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)



Donohoe, Brian H
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Doran, Frank



Dowd, Jim
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Drew, David
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)



Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Efford, Clive
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Ennis, Jeff
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Fisher, Mark
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Flint, Caroline
Kemp, Fraser


Flynn, Paul
Khabra, Piara S


Follett, Barbara
Kidney, David


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Foulkes, George
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Fyfe, Maria
Kingham, Ms Tess


Gapes, Mike
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Gardiner, Barry
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Gerrard, Neil
Laxton, Bob


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lepper, David


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Leslie, Christopher


Godman, Dr Norman A
Levitt, Tom


Goggins, Paul
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Linton, Martin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Grocott, Bruce
Lock, David


Grogan, John
Love, Andrew


Gunnell, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Hain, Peter
McCabe, Steve


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)



Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McDonagh, Siobhain


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Macdonald, Calum


Healey, John
McDonnell, John






McFall, John
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


McIsaac, Shona
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rooker, Jeff


McNamara, Kevin
Rooney, Terry


McNulty, Tony
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


MacShane, Denis
Roy, Frank


Mactaggart, Fiona
Ruane, Chris


McWalter, Tony
Ruddock, Joan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Mallaber, Judy
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Salter, Martin


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Savidge, Malcolm


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sawford, Phil


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Shaw, Jonathan


Maxton, John
Sheerman, Barry


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Meale, Alan
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Merron, Gillian
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Singh, Marsha


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Skinner, Dennis


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Moran, Ms Margaret
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Southworth, Ms Helen


Mountford, Kali
Speller, John


Mudie, George
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mullin, Chris
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stevenson, George


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Norris, Dan
Stinchcombe, Paul


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stott, Roger


O'Hara, Eddie
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Olner, Bill
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


O'Neill, Martin
Stringer, Graham


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Pearson, Ian
(Dewsbury)



Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pickthall, Colin
Temple—Morris, Peter


Pike, Peter L
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Plaskitt, James
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pollard, Kerry
Timms, Stephen


Pond, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Pope, Greg
Todd, Mark


Pound, Stephen
Touhig, Don


Powell, Sir Raymond
Trickett, Jon


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Truswell, Paul


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Primarolo, Dawn
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Prosser, Gwyn
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Purchase, Ken
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Vaz, Keith


Quinn, Lawrie
Vis, Dr Rudi


Radice, Giles
Walley, Ms Joan


Rammell, Bill
Ward, Ms Claire


Rapson, Syd
Wareing, Robert N


Raynsford, Nick
Watts, David


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
White, Brian





Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wise, Audrey


Wicks, Malcolm
Woolas, Phil


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Worthington, Tony


(Swansea W)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Wyatt, Derek


Wills, Michael



Wilson, Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winnick, David
Mr. David Hanson and


Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Jane Kennedy.




NOES


Amess, David
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Keetch, Paul


Baker, Norman
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Bercow, John
Key, Robert


Blunt, Crispin
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Body, Sir Richard
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Brady, Graham
Kirkwood, Archy


Brand, Dr Peter
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Brazier, Julian
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Breed, Colin
Lansley, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Leigh, Edward


Browning, Mrs Angela
Letwin, Oliver


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Burnett, John
Lidington, David


Burns, Simon
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Burstow, Paul
Llwyd, Elfyn


Cash, William Chapman, Sir Sydney
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


(Chipping Barnet)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Clappison, James
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Collins, Tim
Maples, John


Colvin, Michael
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Cormack, Sir Patrick
May, Mrs Theresa


Cran, James
Moore, Michael


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Moss, Malcolm


Day, Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Norman, Archie


Duncan, Alan
Oaten, Mark


Duncan Smith, lain
Ottaway, Richard


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Paice, James


Evans, Nigel
Pickles, Eric


Faber, David
Prior, David


Fabricant, Michael
Randall, John


Fallon, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fearn, Ronnie
Rendel, David


Flight, Howard
Robertson, Laurence (Tewkb'ry)


Forsythe, Clifford
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
St Aubyn, Nick


Fraser, Christopher
Sanders, Adrian


Gale, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Garnier, Edward
Shepherd, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gill, Christopher
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Gillen, Mrs Cheryl
Soames, Nicholas


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gorrie, Donald
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gray, James
Spring, Richard


Green, Damian
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Greenway, John
Streeter, Gary


Grieve, Dominic
Stunell, Andrew


Hammond, Philip
Swayne, Desmond


Harris, Dr Evan
Swinney, John 


Hawkins, Nick
Syms, Robert


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Horam, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Thompson, William






Tonge, Dr Jenny
Wells, Bowen


Townend, John
Welsh, Andrew


Tredinnick, David
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Trend, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Tyler, Paul
Willis, Phil


Tyrie, Andrew
Woodward, Shaun


Viggers, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Walter, Robert
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wardle, Charles
Tellers for the Noes:


Waterson, Nigel
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Webb, Steve
Sir David Madel.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill—

Order of consideration

1. The Bill, as amended, shall be further considered in the following order, namely amendments relating to Clauses 53 to 56; remaining New Clauses; amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 6, Schedule 1, Clauses 7 to 16, Schedule 2, Clause 17, Schedule 3, Clauses 18 and 19, Schedule 4, Clauses 20 to 29, Schedule 5, Clauses 30 to 44, Schedule 6, Clauses 45 to 50, Schedule 7, Clauses 51 and 52, Clauses 57 to 61, Schedule 8, Clauses 62 to 64, Schedule 9, Clause 65, Schedule 10, Clauses 66 to 70, Schedule 11 and Clause 71; New Schedules; amendments relating to Clauses 72 and 73, Schedule 12, Clauses 74 to 76, Schedule 13 and Clauses 77 to 79.

Timetable

2.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration in respect of amendments relating to Clauses 53 to 56 shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

(2) The remaining proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

Questions to be put

3.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 2(1) the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question that any remaining amendments to Clauses 53 to 56 standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown be made to the Bill;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(2) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 2(2) the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown be made to the Bill;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

Miscellaneous

4. Standing Order 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at today's sitting, and the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House.

5. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on the Bill.

6. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.

7. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.

8. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.

9. If at today's sitting a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (as that Standing Order has effect in accordance with the Order of the House [16th December 1998]) stands over to Four o'clock and proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.

10. If the House is adjourned at today's sitting, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Orders of the Day — Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

Clause 53

INCAPACITY BENEFIT: RESTRICTION TO RECENT CONTRIBUTORS

Mr. Roger Berry: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 52, line 18, leave out Clauses 53 and 54.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 52, line 18, leave out Clause 53.

No. 3, in page 52, leave out lines 23 to 27 and insert—
'(a) subject to a minimum period of contributions actually paid of one year, contributions actually paid for a period of less than 10 years shall allow payment of a proportion of benefit to be calculated depending on the number of years for which contributions have been made; and'.

No. 6, in clause 54, page 53, line 1, leave out Clause 54.

No. 113, in page 53, line 16, at end insert—
'(aa) for a person in employment to be treated in prescribed circumstances as in contracted—out employment for the purposes of this section;
(ab) for any reduction under subsection (1) to be made only where the person entitled to incapacity benefit was for any period treated for the purposes of this section as in contracted— out employment;
(ac) for the duration of such period of periods to be taken into account in a prescribed manner in calculating the amount of any such reduction;'.
Government amendment No. 31.

No. 86, in clause 55, page 54, line 3, leave out Clauses 55 and 56.

No. 7, in clause 56, page 54, line 38, leave out Clause 56.

Mr. Berry: Before I explain what the amendment does and why we have tabled it, I must make two comments. First, I entirely support the Government's curtailing debate at a ridiculous hour on Tuesday morning and I entirely support the guillotine motion. Timetabled debates are a credit to the House, and what happened in the early hours of Tuesday morning was a discredit to the House.
Secondly, I do not want the political party that, when in government in 1995, inflicted the biggest ever cuts in benefits for disabled people who were unable to work to start attacking this side of the House. It is true that one or two Conservative Members hold views about incapacity benefit that are the same as my own. I respect their views and the lobbying that they have taken as fellow members of the all-party disablement group. However, the Conservative Government's policy in 1995, when they cut literally billions of pounds off benefit for disabled people who were unable to work, does not give them great moral authority in the Chamber this afternoon.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made a very important point about the occasions when those who support this Government passionately might find themselves in the same position

as several of my colleagues and I this afternoon. I will not weary the House with a long defence. I simply say this: the first rumours of possible cuts to incapacity benefit appeared in the media 18 months ago. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will acknowledge that many Labour Members requested meetings with Ministers—I am grateful that our requests were granted—and expressed our concerns. There may be a difference of opinion at the end of the day, and I do not demand that Ministers change their view. However, it must be recognised that our concerns about clauses 53 and 54 have not appeared suddenly in recent weeks.
Many of us expressed concern when rumours first appeared in the media 18 months ago. Some of us have made a regular trek—in my case, from my office in Millbank—to the Department of Social Security. This is not a Johnny—come—lately concern. Disagree we may, but let nobody say that attempts were not made to avoid the situation that we face today. I would have given almost anything to avoid it. The problem is, of course, that clauses 53 and 54 will do so much damage.
2 pm
I regret that discussions have, unfortunately, brought about no change, but I feel regret also because my colleagues and I have consistently applauded the Government's very great achievements in securing a better deal, fairness and more equal opportunities for disabled people. In the new deal, progress on civil rights and a range of other policies, the Government's performance contrasts dramatically with that of the previous Government.
I last spoke in a debate in the House three or four weeks ago to express the strongest possible enthusiasm for the Disability Rights Commission Bill. The Government care about a fair deal for disabled people, which is why I regret having to stand here today and say that clauses 53 and 54 are, sadly, in sharp contrast to their commendable policies elsewhere, including many in the Bill. I welcome many of the Bill's measures—not least the increased benefits for severely disabled young people—because they will help disabled people.
Why, then, is there such concern about clauses 53 and 54? Clause 53 will withdraw entitlement to incapacity benefit from new claimants who have been unable to make national insurance contributions in the previous two years. Clause 54 proposes to means-test incapacity benefit.
One might ask, "What is the problem?" The problem is that the two clauses would reduce benefit for disabled people who are unable to work. In the first year, 45,000 disabled people who cannot work would be worse off, and that figure would rise to 335,000 after 10 years. That is equivalent to more than one in five of those who currently receive incapacity benefit.
Those figures are not mine or those of the disability movement; they are the figures in the regulatory impact assessment produced by the Department of Social Security. The plan is that the long-term effect should be that more than a third of a million disabled people who are unable to work will be worse off. The average net cost to those people in the first year will be £28 a week, and the cost will rise thereafter. Of course, many will be worse off even than that. That cost allows for tax and benefit changes, as set down in the regulatory impact assessment.
Clause 53 will deny 170,000 people entitlement to any incapacity benefit. That is the figure in the Green Paper. The media have quoted that figure as if disability organisations have plucked it from the air, but they have not. Those people will not be entitled to incapacity benefit because they have not paid sufficient contributions in the previous two years. They will not suddenly be fit for work. In the strange language of disability benefits, they will have "passed" the all-work test, or whatever replaces it. They will be unable to work, due to long-term illness or disability, not because their GP or their disability organisation says so, but because the Benefits Agency's own doctors say so. Such people might have made national insurance contributions for 20 or 30 years, but if they have not made enough contributions in the last two years—perhaps because they lost their job and have been unemployed—they will be denied incapacity benefit.
We are told that the measure restores the original intention of incapacity benefit. Incapacity benefit was introduced by the previous Government in 1995. I had thought that the benefit was intended to provide financial support for disabled people who were unable to work. I assumed that if, in 1995, there had been any doubt about the intention of the benefit, the contribution conditions would have been changed to take that into account. I assume that those who were in this place in 1995 knew what contribution conditions were set down in that legislation, and I cannot imagine for a moment that anyone inserted contribution conditions that did not reflect the purpose of the benefit. With the greatest respect, I find it difficult to understand the argument that the Bill restores the original intention of incapacity benefit.
Clause 54 proposes that, for those who do qualify for incapacity benefit in future, that benefit—which is, rightly, taxable—will also be means-tested. In other words, anyone with a personal or occupational pension of more than £50 a week will lose 50p of incapacity benefit for every extra £1 of pension. As soon as the pension of a disabled person who is unable to work reaches £2,652 a year, they will start to lose incapacity benefit. People who are unable to work, who have made personal provision for their future financial security, would face an effective marginal tax rate of 50 per cent.—greater than that of the highest-income earners in the country, and of Members of Parliament.
I believe that people who have put aside money for their security in later life—who have put money into a personal pension or an occupational pension—will feel that they have been misled. I believe that they understood that if they made personal provision, it would top up incapacity benefit, should they ever be unable to work.
I have many friends who fall into that category. Many of them have a deteriorating condition. They are currently in work. They are planning for the future, when—perhaps at the age of 50—they will be physically unable to work. They will not slip into incapacity benefit; they will be judged by Benefits Agency doctors to be physically unable to work. They have a condition that makes that probable. Therefore they do what all Governments say that they should do—they save. They put money into a personal pension or make other arrangements, in order to top up the incapacity benefit that they believe that they would be entitled to. They will feel aggrieved because they will feel that, whereas they have fulfilled their part of the contract, the Government are modifying their version of what constitutes the Government's part of the contract.
Inevitably, apart from causing great hardship, the measure will discourage saving. How could it be otherwise? And yet we all want to encourage people to extend personal provision for later life. Incapacity benefit will start to be lost when those people's pension reaches the princely sum of £2,652 a year.
Why are the Government doing this? I have been asked that question frequently in recent days, and my answer has always been that I do not know; and I genuinely do not know, because this is not a necessary part of the welfare reform programme, which I passionately support. I do not believe that the arguments suggesting that it is necessary are entirely convincing.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton referred earlier to the growth in the number of people in receipt of incapacity benefit. At Prime Minister's questions yesterday afternoon, a question, which was entirely right and which has clarified things enormously, was asked about people currently in receipt of incapacity benefit who might or might not have ended up on incapacity benefit because of the policies of the previous Government. I have no quarrel at all with that question or with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said earlier, but we need to recognise that clauses 53 and 54 have nothing whatever to do with existing claimants; they relate to future claimants.
It is therefore a fact that whatever the Tories did or did not do to encourage people on to incapacity benefit and off unemployment benefit is totally irrelevant to the clauses that are giving rise to contention today. Although it seems obvious—the point has been made many times by disability organisations, and I made it on Second Reading, with all humility, as did many others—I repeat that there cannot possibly be a justification for clauses 53 and 54, which cut incapacity benefit for future claimants, that rests on what the Tories might or might not have done.
If the Government believe that, in the future, people who are not entitled to incapacity benefit may receive it, the solution is simple: look at the gateway to the benefit, look at the eligibility criteria, look at the all-work test and give different guidance to the Benefits Agency doctors.

Mr. Tom Levitt: That is being done.

Mr. Berry: From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend makes the point that that is being done. He is entirely right, but it is also right to say that that has nothing whatever to do with the amendment, which would delete clauses 53 and 54. I do not want to be ruled out of order; I want to stick to a discussion of those clauses, but can we please recognise that that argument is not relevant?
We are told that something must be done about incapacity benefit—there is a "something must be done" school of thought—because the number of people in receipt of it has tripled and so on. I do not want to detain the House by discussing why that might have happened. Governments are spending more on supporting disabled people; most of the time we take credit for that, but if we are now supposed to be embarrassed, okay. With the greatest respect, comparing the present situation with that of 20 years ago is not relevant. The last time incapacity benefit was examined—indeed, the year in which it was introduced to replace invalidity benefit—was not 20 years ago, but 1995.
I have referred to 1995 once before this afternoon. It seems to be the year that has been Snopaked from history in the debate on these matters in recent weeks—it is as if 1995 never occurred. However, that was the year when the Conservatives scrapped invalidity benefit and replaced it with the far less generous incapacity benefit. Since then, spending on incapacity benefit has fallen. It is currently about £7.4 billion a year; four years ago, it was nearer £9 billion a year—and it is falling as a result of the latest changes that are feeding through the system. The idea that further cuts to incapacity benefit are necessary because of escalating spending is simply wrong.
If we look at the latest Department of Social Security figures on the number of claimants for incapacity benefit, we see that, since 1995, there has been a fall in the number of people in receipt of it. The figure is 5 per cent. down on that for 1995, and benefit rates have of course fallen in value. That is why spending on incapacity benefit is falling; that is what the previous Government were trying to achieve in 1995.
The previous Government did not go through all the problems of revising benefits for disabled people who are unable to work for any reason other than to reduce spending. That is what they did, and they did it by reducing benefit rates and the number of claimants. Let us be perfectly clear: as of today, spending is falling and the number of claimants is falling, and their policies are the reason for that. I doubt very much that Labour Members would want to worsen that situation.
2.15 pm
We are told that we should means-test incapacity benefit because more people have occupational or personal pensions than when it—or, more correctly, its predecessor—was introduced. That was the justification for the 1995 cuts. It is interesting to re-read those debates, although I shall not quote from them so that I do not get into even more trouble.
The reason given by the Government of the day for the change was that more people had personal or occupational pensions. For example, that was the justification for the specific policy of removing the earnings-related element of the benefit. The growth in occupational pensions was taken into account four years ago. With the greatest respect, that argument has already been used to cut incapacity benefit. What on earth could be the justification for doing so again? I do not know; perhaps the Tories did not cut enough. [Interruption.] Yes, it is a shame, given the situation that we have inherited, that we should be considering further cuts.
The argument could be made that, because the basic state pension is a contributory benefit and many pensioners have occupational pensions, we ought to means-test it. The Government are quite rightly steadfastly opposed to that, as we all are. I simply make the point that the same argument could be made for incapacity benefit. Both are contributory benefits, both are rightly taxable, and in both cases we want to encourage people to make personal provision.
We are told that some incapacity benefit claimants have a high income, and that that justifies the means-testing. Again, the same argument could be made to means-test

the basic state pension. Quite rightly, the Government are strongly opposed to that. Disabled people who are unable to work and who have a pension income of £2,652 are hardly well off, but, on that pension income, they will start losing incapacity benefit.
It has been said that we need clauses 53 and 54 to help severely disabled people. I do not believe that that can be justified. The clauses save the Government, in the long term, £700 million. The changes to severe disablement allowance will save £100 million in total. That is more than the cost of the disability income guarantee and the improvement in disability allowance for three and four-year-olds. It is therefore not the case that the £700 million saving resulting from these proposals is being recycled to help severely disabled people.
It is not clear, either, that, if that were the case, the most equitable way of helping severely disabled people would be to redistribute not from the general population, but from less severely disabled people. Moreover, severely disabled people will be hit by the cuts in incapacity benefit envisaged in the clauses. There are severely disabled people who have not been able to pay national insurance contributions for the previous two years. There are severely disabled people who will be means-tested. There is no reallocation of money to assist severely disabled people.
I shall bring my comments to a close, because many hon. Members want to speak. At the beginning of my speech, I said that there had been meetings between the all-party disablement group, of which I have the honour to be the secretary, and Ministers over the months. I place on record my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues—and, indeed, to his predecessor and her ministerial colleagues—for a series of extremely courteous and helpful meetings. While, obviously, I regret the outcome of the meetings, that constitutes no criticism. The openness that they featured should be applauded.
I am more concerned about the fact that disability organisations which know a lot about disability benefits, the way in which people are affected from day to day and the effect that the proposals might have feel that their views have been cast aside. Sadly, last week 12 organisations resigned from the disability benefits forum that the Government rightly set up to advise on disability benefits, including the Carers National Association, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation.
Those organisations do not make decisions in haste. Their chief executives are not people who rush to criticise anyone; they have a job to do, and they want to get on with it. They support 99 per cent. of what the Bill is doing to help disabled people—as, indeed, do I, and as do my colleagues who have joined me in tabling the amendment. They felt, however, that they had something important to say. They were and are aggrieved, and, in fairness, the House should take that into consideration.
Clauses 53 and 54 are unfair. Hundreds of thousands of disabled people who are unable to work will be worse off as a result of them. The Government's commitment to welfare reform, which I strongly share, does not depend on those clauses. I believe that they should be removed, and that is what amendment No. 12 would achieve. I therefore urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I shall speak for only a short time, because I suspect that the House would rather hear from Labour Members. Some of them nod; I shall not disappoint them.
The House wishes to hear from Labour Members because the time has come for the posturing to end, and for Labour to govern. The time has come for Labour to learn the hard lessons of government. Occasionally, Governments must do unpopular things and disappoint their supporters. Labour Members must either have the courage of their convictions and do what they know in their hearts is right, thus disappointing their natural constituency, or support the Government.
There has been enormous criticism of what the Conservative Government tried to achieve in regard to social security. There has been criticism of so-called salami-slicing government. That, however, is precisely what this Government are doing today, in an attempt—no doubt orchestrated by the Treasury—to save money. As the proposal has been designed by new Labour, it will of course affect people in the future; but that will not soften the row that is already brewing. This attempt to save £750 million is not part of the grand strategy for welfare reform. It is a mean measure—and it is, above all, a means-testing measure.
The two clauses are so wrong not because the social security budget is too large, although it is too large; not because the social security budget must be cut, although it must be cut; not because some groups in society will suffer, although, sadly, they will. They are wrong because they target people who are neither very rich nor very poor, but who have made a modest attempt to save for their old age.
It is appalling to assume that someone with a modest pension who has not sustained his or her contributions over the past two years should be denied an ever-increasing amount of incapacity benefit. So many conditions gradually catch up on people. So many people in future will not be able to maintain their contributions—people who have saved a little, and who will suffer if these clauses are agreed to. I hope that all hon. Members will look to their consciences, and vote against the clauses in four hours' time.

Mr. Levitt: I oppose amendment No. 12, and support the Bill as drafted. I do so with some regret. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and I have worked together on a number of disability issues for many years, even before I was a Member of Parliament, and I am sorry that our views differ in this instance. Let me explain why that is.
Some of my colleagues find the whole concept of what they call means-testing distasteful. I understand their reasons, but I think that ensuring that money goes to those who need it most is what government is all about. Clauses 53 and 54 will enable resources to be targeted at those who are most in need: disabled people and their carers, and others on low incomes.
Clause 54 is, I feel, the more significant of the two. It creates a link between occupational pensions and incapacity benefit. Occupational pensions are deferred income: there is a tax advantage for those who contribute to them at the time of their contribution. It behoves us to examine the treatment of occupational pensions in other parts of the benefits system.
A person receiving a jobseeker's allowance who also has an occupational pension loses his or her jobseeker's allowance pound for pound against the occupational pension. Those who move to old age pensions from incapacity benefit lose their incapacity benefit completely, and some who make such a move do so by taking a cut in income. I do not necessarily defend those two states of play; I am saying that the Bill's proposals are much more generous to those who will be on incapacity benefit in the future than we are now to those receiving jobseeker's allowance, or experiencing the transition to old age pensions.
Incapacity benefit is not strictly a disability benefit. It is there to compensate people for the loss of income caused by incapacity; it does not address the disability itself. There has been no mention in the debate of disability living allowance, the principal benefit for disabled people, which deals with the actual costs of disability. The Bill makes no change to that allowance. It will not be means-tested, and, in that sense, it is true to say that the Bill does not provide for a general means test for disability benefits, despite the way in which it has been portrayed.

Mr. Steve Webb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Levitt: I will not, because plenty of hon. Members want to make their case, and I want as many as possible to be able to do so—as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does as well.
What will be the position of new claimants? Those in receipt of incapacity benefit plus an occupational pension of up to £50 a week will not be affected by the Bill. That applies to four out of five people receiving incapacity benefit who either have no occupational pension, or have an occupational pension of less than £50 a week. Only those with incomes of £10,000 a year or more consisting of a combination of incapacity benefit and occupational pensions will have their incapacity benefit withdrawn.
Moreover, we should consider the effect of the measure on those people's guaranteed income—bearing in mind that the Government are guaranteeing income to certain parts of the population. The income that those at the top of the taper on occupational pensions will receive is higher than the pensioners income guarantee that we have introduced, higher than the disabled persons income guarantee and considerably higher than the national minimum wage, in the case of someone working a 40-hour week. It is more or less equivalent to the working families tax credit. Thus even at the top of the taper, it is still the highest guaranteed income for any group for which the Government are undertaking to guarantee an income.

Mr. Webb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Levitt: I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman that I am sure he will get his chance.
Other Labour Members have expressed the view that the £50 limit—the £50 cut-in—of the occupational pensions taper is too small. It may be, but the £50 is not in the Bill. Indeed, the Bill provides the mechanism for
changing the level; it gives the Secretary of State the power to change that level. That ability must be there, but the £50 itself is not in the Bill.
Others object for reasons—which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood rightly mentioned—to do with the deficiencies in the way in which the Benefits Agency's medical and tribunal services operate. Those are good points, but they too are being addressed through other measures, many of which do not require legislation. It is therefore not necessary to have them in the Bill.
It has been said that there is a disincentive to save, but let us look at another clause in the Bill: the one to introduce stakeholder pensions. It ensures that anyone whose income is less than £9,000 per year, which will include a lot of disabled people, will receive stakeholder pension credits as though they were receiving £9,000 a year. It would not be possible to fund that measure without the funding made available by clauses 53 and 54.
That stakeholder pension element, from which many disabled people will benefit, has to be factored into the equation when people assess whether it is a cuts Bill. The measures will lead to an extra £1 billion being spent on disabled people's benefits during the current Parliament. If we take into account the changes to the stakeholder pension, to the carers allowance and to the disability income guarantee—which, again, is not in the Bill because it is a Treasury measure—we will find not a deficit of £750 million in 10 years' time, but a net increase resulting in extra funding going to that wider group of people.
I ask my colleagues on the Labour Benches to consider the following situation. At their next advice surgery, they may have in front of them a three-year-old girl who has been born with no legs, and her parents; a 17-year-old boy who has been a promising student, but is now paraplegic after a road accident; a disabled adult on a low income who is never likely to be able to save for a pension; and a bank manager who has taken early retirement with a back problem. He has £70,000 in savings, a £150,000 house, an occupational pension worth £25,000 or £35,000, and £3,500 a year of incapacity benefit on top of that.
The Bill will, for the first time, give that three-year-old girl access to disability benefits. It will give that 17-year-old boy the highest level of non-contributory benefits—higher than incapacity benefit—to meet the needs of his severe disability. As I have already explained, it will give that disabled person a stake in a stakeholder pension. It will allow that bank manager to keep his £3,500 incapacity benefit because he is an existing claimant, but it says that the incapacity benefit of the tiny minority of people who have such an occupational pension, some of whom are on the highest rate of taxation, is better spent on the other people who will benefit from the Bill.
As someone who has been involved with the disability world for a long time, my dream is that everyone who has to leave work early because of incapacity or disability—perhaps through failing eyesight, hearing, dexterity or mobility—will be helped to stay in work for an average of five more years through educating employers about their needs, providing technology for them and other support at work, and preventing discrimination against them in employment. Those measures will retain skills in the work

force, and maintain the dignity and income levels of disabled people. They will have the knock-on effect of reducing the amount that the state pays out in benefit.
All those measures are in train. Those on the new deal and access to work are up and running. We should be celebrating because, this morning, the Disability Rights Commission Bill completed its Committee stage with helpful amendments that were asked for by the disability lobby. The Bill will outlaw, and give teeth to the outlawing of, discrimination, but the third leg of that stool is the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. That addresses the real needs of disabled people and finances the measures by redirecting some of the funds from some relatively wealthy people to those who have nothing. Amendment No. 12 does not help the people at the bottom in any way. I oppose the amendment and support the Bill.

Mr. David Rendel: I am pleased to have the chance to talk a little about the amendments because they are critical to the whole of the Bill. I should like to follow through some of the Government's arguments and then talk a little about what their aims are. I hope to demonstrate thereby that their arguments are illogical and contain internal inconsistencies, and that their aims will not be met by the measures that they seek to introduce.
When the Government started to talk about welfare reform, they said that the cuts that they planned to introduce were perhaps needed to meet the requirement to reduce the welfare bill—welfare costs in total. They said that those costs had been going up over a period, that they looked like continuing to go up in the foreseeable future, and that it was important to bring them down.
However, when we discussed clauses 53 and 54 in Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), made it clear that, on the contrary, the clauses were not Treasury driven and that the amount of money that was due to be saved was incidental: it just happened that there would be savings, but that was not the point of the clauses.
The previous Secretary of State for Social Security had made it clear that, if there were to be any cuts in benefits for disabled people, they would be given back to those people in some other way; there would be no net cut in their benefits. Clearly, therefore, although there may be a need to reduce the welfare bill overall, the intention of clauses 53 and 54 cannot be to achieve that.
Another reason that the Government gave for introducing the clauses was that the Tory party and the previous Government had moved people off the unemployment register on to incapacity benefit, and that that was the wrong thing to do. They said that that policy had to be reversed, yet when we questioned them in Committee on the point, they said, "it is not true to say that anyone receiving incapacity benefit does not deserve it, or is not truly incapacitated."
The Government said that all the doctors who had been doing the tests to decide whether those people were really due incapacity benefit had been doing a good job, and that everyone who was currently getting incapacity benefit was due it. What is more, they told us that they did not intend to change the tests, or to give the doctors concerned any other advice. They are changing the name of the test, but they told us clearly that they had no intention of making it more severe, or more difficult to get through;


they have no intention of making it more difficult to receive incapacity benefit following changes in relation to the tests. Their argument that, in some way, what they are doing now will reduce the number on incapacity benefit and push up the unemployment register—which they appear to think is the right thing to do—is inconsistent and illogical.
The Government have said that, wherever possible, they want to encourage people with disabilities to get back into work. My hon. Friends and I share that view and there is probably not a Member in the House who does not believe that, when it is possible for people with disabilities to get back to work, they should be encouraged and enabled to do so. Yet the Government have to answer the question that they failed to answer in Committee, which is how restricting incapacity benefit to people who have worked recently, and restricting the amount of incapacity benefit for people with occupational pensions, will help disabled people to get back into work. It is likely to have the opposite effect. Those who are becoming more disabled through some progressive illness will be tempted to get out of work as quickly as possible because they will need to do so at a time when they have recently paid contributions and will be eligible for incapacity benefit.
The Government say that it is all part of a package. The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) made that point too. In fact, it is not a necessary part of the package. We were told just now that we cannot have the other things in the Bill, such as the increase in severe disablement allowance for some young people, unless we have these two clauses. Yet, as I said already, the Government have made it clear that the savings that they are introducing in these two clauses are peripheral and are not a necessary part of the package. It is therefore illogical to pretend that we cannot have the other parts of the package, which may be welcome, unless we have these two clauses.
What have the Government said about their aims? They have said that their aim is to help the most vulnerable and there are things in the Bill which help to do that. There are things which my hon. Friends and I have not hesitated to welcome. Only a small part of the cuts being introduced in this Bill is going back to the most vulnerable. In these two clauses we see a net cut in the long term of £700 million a year. That is not giving help to the most vulnerable.
Had the Government come here today and said that they needed the cuts because the money was needed to help the most vulnerable, that would have reassured many Labour as well as Opposition Members. They would have believed that that was the right way to spread the available money. Liberal Democrats have no intention of saying that we suddenly want to increase the welfare bill by a huge amount in order to help the most vulnerable. We accept that there is only a certain amount of money available and that, where possible, it should be spread to the most vulnerable. In that sense, we approve of the Government's aim, but we disapprove of the fact that they are not achieving that aim by means of these two clauses.
The Government want to encourage work. We, too, want to see work encouraged where possible. After all, for those who have some incapacity, work is often a means of increasing self-confidence and self-worth. For that reason alone, apart from the financial incentive, it is worth trying to encourage people back to work where possible.
Clause 53 restricts those who will receive incapacity benefit. In the future, it will not go to those who have worked for a long time and been able to make their national insurance contributions over some years. Instead, there will be an arbitrary cut-off which says that if one has not done the right amount of work within the past two years, one cannot get incapacity benefit. Surely, if the Government were really out to encourage work, they would be trying to encourage those who have been working the longest by giving them the most help when they become incapable of working.
The Government said that they want to encourage saving—so do we, because it is a good aim. The Government are introducing disincentives to saving by increasing the amount of means-tested benefits for those with disabilities. In practice, although the Government's aim of encouraging saving is one of which we approve, once again, they are failing to achieve it by what they are doing.
There is one aim that the Government will achieve, however, and that is their aim to reduce welfare spending. They will do so by cutting benefits at the expense of some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society, including some who have severe disablement and perhaps have never been able to work or make national insurance contributions. The Government have invented for themselves a new slogan: work for those who can, cuts for those who cannot.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I support amendment No. 12. I fear that, for the first time in 16 years in this Parliament, I may not be in a position to support the Government if, as I see it, they remain intransigent on this matter. It will be the first time that I have not supported my party in all my time here, and I say that of the party I love.
Many of my remarks will echo those of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and the all-party disablement group, including Lord Ashley, who leads it, Alf Morris, Brian Rix and many others. I thank them for the help they have given me in seeking to make some sense of this debate and the various views expressed in it. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, who has been unfailingly courteous to me. I do not join those of my colleagues who think that, in the society in which we live and with the pluralism that we enjoy, it is wrong of a member of the Government or someone from the Whips Office to give us their views. Our job is to win the debate and get this Government of ours on the right lines.
Like me, many of my colleagues have been pleased to be part of a Government who, in two short years, have done so much to benefit the lives of millions of our disabled fellow citizens, honouring the commitment I gave on behalf of the shadow Cabinet at the party conference before the last election.
Of course, I warmly support the new deal for disabled people and the disabled persons tax credit. I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been able to do for children and those under 25. However, it is against that backdrop that I argue for this amendment, largely because I proudly endorse the Government's initiatives, particularly on disability and employment.
There is no difference between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me when he argues that replacing benefits with paid work is common sense for any person, disabled or not. It restores dignity and self-esteem. In the autumn of 1998 the then Secretary of State for Social Security and the all-party disablement group, together, said:
future savings would come from helping disabled people to get jobs rather than reducing benefit entitlement.
That commitment is the inspiration behind amendment No. 12.
I have been surprised that it is proposed in the future to remove the benefit entitlement of tens of thousands of people who are unable to work. More in sorrow than in anger, I say that the Government have failed to recognise in clause 53 that not all disabled people are able to work. Indeed—according figures recently published by the Government, not me—170,000 people will suffer from the provisions. They will be excluded from incapacity benefit, but will not be provided with a safety net. It cannot be right to exclude those people from benefit if we are genuinely pursuing social justice. It cannot be right to exclude them if our test really is to respond to the needs of the many, not the few.
What is the purpose of clause 53? What will it accomplish? If it is being suggested that, now or in the future, people on incapacity benefit are not sick or disabled, the way of dealing with the problem is by using the entitlement test. Very clearly, the issue should be one of whether those people are able to pass the gateway-to-benefit test, rather than—as many people believe the Bill would do—moving the goal posts without changing the eligibility criteria.
Given the reforms of the all-work test, on which I have pressed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before—and which we must assume go a long way towards meeting the Government's objectives; otherwise, why did we make them?—I fail to see why it is necessary to go even further by abolishing entitlement to incapacity benefit for so many people. It is especially difficult to understand why abolition is necessary when we hear that the Bill is not cuts driven.
The evidence from my own surgeries—like that, I suspect, from the surgeries of hon. Members on both sides of the House—tells me that it is not easy to get incapacity benefit. The tests are very stringent and, for many people, require great effort. The reforms of 1995—as recently as that—made the all-work test even more rigid. Extravagant claims of huge abuses—of many disabled people lying idle and receiving benefit—are quite simply wrong.
Although I want disabled people to find work, I fail to understand how denying benefits to those who have not made contributions in the past two years, as they have not able to work in those years, will help to achieve that objective. In fact, denying benefit to those disabled people could have the perverse effect of deterring them from seeking work. Many people believe that, if they return to work but again fall ill, they may not be able to receive benefit. For many people, that is a disincentive to find work—which is the complete opposite of all that we want to achieve.
I do not fall for the argument that everyone who is unemployed does not want a job. The argument does not hold true of the people who come to my constituency surgeries, and does not accord with the evidence and observations of which I am told weekly by other hon. Members. I cannot believe, and will not accept, that the argument is true in the cases of people who have to be helped into my surgeries—and who tell me that, after the shortest medical tests, they are being cut off completely from benefit. That is wrong and must be corrected.
Clause 53 proposes taking money from disabled people who cannot work, and giving it to those who can. Therefore, effectively, those who are unable to work will be subsidising those who can. Where is the fairness in that? It is fine that those who are currently receiving incapacity benefit will not be made any worse off by the provisions, but protecting the benefits of today's disabled people cannot justify penalising tomorrow's disabled people. Quite simply, it would be wrong to do that.
Some argue that certain people currently receiving incapacity benefit should not be doing so. The argument has been made by my hon. and dear Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), whom I helped in the previous two general elections. I offer to help him in the next election—although, after this speech, the offer may not be quite so welcome. I also tell him that the Bill will not address the issue of people wrongly receiving incapacity benefit. They will continue to receive the benefit, but it will be denied to those who should qualify for it after passing the most rigid tests ever created. There is absolutely no justification for denying those people benefit.
As the consultation document said, many people have access to occupational and personal pensions—but those are their nest eggs, not luxuries. Many of them pay a high proportion of a relatively low income into a private pension scheme. They are likely to feel deeply betrayed when they discover that—yet again, as under the previous Government—they are being penalised for their action by a reduction in incapacity benefit.
If people are receiving benefit that they do not need, the problem will have to be tackled—I accept that—but we must do so in a manner that does not undermine those who are on low incomes. We cannot redress the perception that many wealthy people are receiving benefit—although, as it happens, they made their contributions over the years—by seeking to take funds from those who are in lower-income brackets.
I am glad that—according to the lunchtime news bulletins—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will be giving us further information on that matter. It would not have been acceptable if people receiving as little as £50 a week were effectively to be taxed at a rate of 50 per cent. It would not be possible for me to defend taking from those people 50p out of each pound. That was not the policy that I offered in the three years when I had the privilege of being the shadow Cabinet spokesperson on disability.
We understand the Government's concern about the rising costs of welfare spending. However, we shall not reduce those costs if—because of the provisions of clause 54, which may adversely affect their benefits entitlement, making them feel cheated—people feel less inclined to invest in a pension for their latter years.
Again more in sorrow than in anger, I say that it would be a tragedy if the Government, by not accepting amendment No. 12, were to tarnish what has so far been an excellent record of protecting disabled people's interests. I am sincerely convinced that the clauses would lead to hardship for many of our constituents who will become disabled.
In that spirit, and in all honesty, I cannot support a policy that is logically flawed and, in the eyes of many, morally without justification. Even now, at the 11th hour, I plead with the Government to think again.

3 pm

Mrs. Angela Browning: I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 86. The debate so far has focused primarily on the means-testing of incapacity benefit and the changes to it. Amendment No. 86 would delete clauses 55 and 56. Clause 55 deals with incapacity in youth and clause 56 contains the Government's proposal to abolish severe disablement allowance.
The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) rightly drew attention to the fact that there are many people who will never work, however much we may wish to make available to them the facilities of supported employment. Many young people currently qualify for SDA on the ground that they are born with a disability. The Government have made the concession of broadening the contributions rule to exempt those up to the age of 25, rather than their original proposal of 19.
We all recognise that for someone with a lifelong severe disability, education or training can go on well into their 20s. Even after that, the chances of paid employment may be limited or may require a protracted process. They may be required to do voluntary work or get into the world of work through the therapeutics earning rule to begin with. I am concerned that those young people who currently qualify for severe disablement allowance on the ground of their disability once they have come through the education system will now come within the catch-all of the new rules for incapacity benefit.
The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) said that incapacity benefit was not necessarily regarded as a disability benefit, but as a benefit that gave substitution for income. I hope that I have not misrepresented him. Those currently qualifying for severe disablement allowance who have never worked and who realistically will never hold down full-time or well-paid part-time employment do not have to fulfil the criteria for an income replacement benefit; they get SDA on a medical assessment of the severity of their disability. That is to change and they are to come within the remit of the incapacity benefit rules. I ask the Government to look again at that.
The more we debate the issue, the more the Government's repeated lectures about the many and the few ring in my ears. The weakness throughout the Bill is that the few are ignored—those with specific disabilities or groups of disabilities whom the Government have not recognised or who will be adversely affected. The abolition of SDA will adversely affect people who were
born with disabilities and for whom full-time paid employment is not a realistic possibility or can be achieved only in modified form.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Does the hon. Lady accept that the change allows the people she is talking about to move to incapacity benefit, which is more generous than severe disablement allowance?

Mrs. Browning: Incapacity benefit is means-tested and departs from the non-contributory nature of SDA. I have already acknowledged that the Government have increased the age limit to 25, but others over 25 will come within that remit for many of the reasons that I have given, but will for the first time fall foul of the contributory rule. I do not want to repeat what I have already said, but for some people with a lifelong disability, often one present from birth, it is appropriate to extend education and training for as long as possible, perhaps well beyond 25, not necessarily because there is a great expectation of them fulfilling a role in paid employment, but because it is a therapeutic programme that may be in their best interests, depending on the type and severity of their disability. I ask the Government to look again at the detail for the few who will be affected by the abolition of SDA, particularly the typical programme for some of the very young people for whom education and training will go on for a very long time in their own best interests.

Mr. Frank Field: I wish to bring the House back to the chilling speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). He was assuredly right to say that Labour Members have much to congratulate the Government on in welfare reform and other areas. Because he was so conscious of the time available, he failed to remind us that he was a member of the previous Labour Government. I shall come back to that point at the end of my speech.
I hope that there are few who are keener than I am on new Labour. For long years I sat on the Opposition Benches as a member of a party that found it difficult to keep its core vote, let alone take the argument beyond that to win elections. However, we have to remember that parties have histories. We are new Labour, but we were the Opposition. That helped to form our character and led us to present ourselves to the electorate in a certain light.
When the Tories attacked the national insurance fund a dozen times or so, we did not oppose them for fun. When we stayed up all night, it was not because it was our only weapon, because we did not need sleep, or because we were ideologically driven by an opposition to means tests; we did it because we saw what Tory policies were doing to our communities. The Tories' endless attack on the welfare state that they inherited and their endless push to means-test were undermining decent working-class morality in our constituencies. They used the power of the state machine to teach people not to work, not to save and not to tell the truth.
When we are taken through the looking glass, like Alice, in our constituencies, knowing that people trust what we say, we can see how deeply corrupting that form of welfare has been. We had to attack what the Conservatives did to our communities, denying people jobs in shipyards and steel mills and throwing them on to means-tested benefits, mocking their every decent


instinct. People were penalised if they saved or if they told the truth, and woe betide them and their chances of getting help if they found employment.
New Labour comes with a history, which has helped to form us. Our opposition was not theoretical, but one that represented the heartlands of our communities. It was a plea that we should have welfare reform which would make difficult decisions, but would build with the grain of human nature and exhort the most decent aspects of mankind—not denigrate or undermine them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton—perhaps without knowing it—gave vent to why the Bill concerns some of us so much. Whichever way we vote tonight, most will do so with heavy hearts and, at some stage, the Bill will come back to us. If one of the reasons for reform is what the Conservatives—that gang over there—did to manipulate unemployment figures and to push people on to incapacity benefit, the solution is to deal with that evil.
The solution is not to say, "Never mind who you are. Never mind what your circumstances are. Never mind what your contribution is. We will get some of you later to get the bill down." Maybe hon. Members on both sides have not been as careful as we should have been when raising individual points about people being treated badly under the benefit integrity project. Perhaps there has been a loss of nerve. The job of policing benefits remains to be done, and is wholly separate from what the Bill is about.
I want to speak to amendment No.12, because clause 53 is an attack on what the Green Paper on welfare reform said and what the Prime Minister has told the country that welfare reform is all about. The Green Paper said that we would move slowly but carefully to a system of contract welfare. We would make sure that it was transparent, that people would build up their entitlements, that they would rely on them and that they would be rewarded for doing so. Clause 53 strikes at the very heart of that concept. Clause 53 also strikes at the Prime Minister's comments about wishing to move us from a something-for-nothing society to a something-for-something society. How can we justify the two clauses that we are debating if we take seriously, as I do, what the Prime Minister has said and continues to say? 
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton referred to the duty that we have as Labour Back Benchers to sustain our Government and to help direct our Government. He talked of some of the difficulties that previous Labour Governments got into with House of Lords reform. I must remind him of the anguish that some of us feel at this stage of the debate.
The 1974 Labour Government were committed to introducing child benefit but, for certain reasons, decided that it would be best to put that commitment aside. There was a leak of Cabinet papers, and some hon. Members faced action under the Official Secrets Act. Some who were in the House then—they are listening to the debate now—bravely spoke in favour of Labour reasserting that promise. They must have felt the anguish that those of us debating the clauses today feel. They had to go through the fire.
I had the privilege to fight the first election that I won in Birkenhead on a platform stressing that one of the great promises that we had delivered was on child benefit.

It was pressure from the Back Benches that delivered that promise, which I found to be so much of a vote winner in Birkenhead. It remains so today.
3.15 pm
There is no case for us to behave irresponsibly. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said, the Whips should have done their job. That is their duty—to get the Government's business through today. Unfortunately, we as Back Benchers have two duties to balance. One is to sustain, with pride, our Government. The other is that when we look back on our stewardship, we do so with real pride in what the Government have achieved.
On the new deal and so many other matters, the Government have made such a clear difference from those characters in the Conservative party who used to occupy the Government Benches. Their policy was to drive people off the rolls, to strengthen the hands of staff, to harass claimants and to push them out. We have not done that. We have provided a £5 billion budget, and people have to behave responsibly, carefully and maturely. However, there are real options. There was clear, red water between our reform programme and what the Conservatives did in power.
In looking back at the Conservatives' dozen attacks on the national insurance fund—which we so opposed—what is the difference from what we are proposing in clauses 53 and 54? Where is the clear water between both sides? It is marvellous to see the Conservative Moonies who have had a mass conversion to national insurance. The Unification church would blush at the way in which the Conservatives have taken to their new roles. If I were not so nervous, I would be able to remember the high priest of the Unification church. We could choose which Opposition Member fulfils that role.
This day will pass and, whatever difficulties we have, we are part of this great party that will deliver the reform programme. Of course, we must bear in mind—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said—what happened to the last Labour Government. However, we must look also at what Back Benchers have managed do to in sustaining and directing the Government. I am sure that we will be successful in that.
I make this plea to Ministers. They will win their vote tonight, given the size of the majority. Many who support them will do so easily, but many others will do so with heavy hearts, and they will be looking for real changes when the Bill comes back from the other place.

Mrs. Theresa May: In his comprehensive and measured speech, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) referred to the delegations taken by the all-party disablement group to meet Ministers over the past two years to discuss the issue of disability benefits, particularly when there were reports in the press that such benefits were under threat.
When I was the joint chairman of the all-party group, I was able to be a member of a number of those delegations, alongside the hon. Gentleman. What was noticeable about Ministers' reaction to our concerns about the threat to disability benefits was their consistent insistence that there was no Treasury-led intention to cut


the amount of money that was being paid in disability benefits, and that any savings would come from disabled people being helped back into the workplace.
That intention was repeated by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), when he referred to the joint statement by the then Secretary of State and the all-party disablement group in March 1998, which said:
There was agreement that future savings would come from helping disabled people to get jobs rather than reducing benefit entitlement.
That theme was repeated in the Green Paper where, on page 54, the Government said that, over time, less money would be spent on incapacity benefit
as more people make a successful return to work and fewer people remain on benefit.
Sadly, clauses 53 and 54 break that commitment.
The Government have said that the changes to incapacity benefit in clauses 53 and 54 are necessary because an awful lot of people are currently in receipt of incapacity benefit who, frankly, are not eligible for it; but they have produced no concrete evidence to support that argument. They make the political assertion—it has been repeated today by several hon. Members—that it was all the fault of the previous Government, who used incapacity benefit to get people off the unemployment figures; again, I have seen no hard evidence for that.
As some Labour Back Benchers have said, if the Government really believe that people are incorrectly receiving incapacity benefit now, the solution is not to prevent disabled people from receiving it in future. The Government argue that something must be done about incapacity benefit because of the increasing numbers of people claiming it. The hon. Member for Kingswood set out the statistics on both the number of claimants and the amount that is being spent, showing that argument to be wrong. Even if his figures are wrong, the Government have failed to appreciate the fact that many people—especially women—are now in the work force and can qualify for receipt of incapacity benefit, whereas in the past they would not have been able to do so.
The answer to the problems that the Government have identified is not what is proposed in clauses 53 and 54. Those proposals will hit genuinely disabled people who deserve to receive incapacity benefit because they are incapable of work.
Disabled people with progressive and deteriorating conditions will be especially badly hit. People with multiple sclerosis, for example, may work full-time for many years and contribute to national insurance and then become unable to work full-time as their condition progresses but, wanting to remain as long as possible in the workplace, they may move into part-time work, eventually falling below the lower earnings limit. Such people may then work for a period without paying the national insurance contributions necessary to qualify for incapacity benefit. When they become completely incapable of working, they will be disqualified from claiming the benefit.
Women will also be badly affected. Women may work for some years and then leave the workplace to look after a family. To meet their family responsibilities, they may return to work, perhaps in two part-time jobs that pay below the lower earnings limit. Women in that position who develop an illness or disability that prevents them

from working will not qualify for incapacity benefit. Such people should not be written off as ineligible, or as scroungers. They would genuinely be in need of the benefit and should qualify for it.
This is not about redistributing benefits to severely disabled people; it is about cutting the amount of benefit available to disabled people. As such, it is a clear breach of commitments given by Ministers to Members of Parliament. It is nothing less than a betrayal of disabled people.

Kali Mountford: I rise in pride to support and sustain the Government. I was one of those who spent 65 hours in Committee, not as a nodding donkey, as some Opposition Members have said, but taking a full part in the debate. Conservative Members who served with me in Committee could assure the House that that is true. I am proud of the fact that we worked on the Bill, in its entirety, including clauses 53 and 54.
The Bill hangs together extremely well. It is cogent. It makes sense of national insurance contributions and of how we pay benefit and deal with people in extreme poverty. It tackles some of the inequities in the current system. Both Government and Opposition Members have spoken of problems that we have had in the past that have nothing to do with the Bill and have already been dealt with. I agree entirely that the benefit integrity project caused incredible pain and harm and I am glad that our Ministers abolished it; we should be proud of that. The House should be aware, though, that it is no longer a problem.
If people want to look for a problem to deal with, let it be the Benefits Agency medical service. I have been aware of that problem for some time, but we should recognise that it has nothing to do with the Bill, and that the Government are considering doctors' qualifications and the criteria to which they will have to work to ensure that the system works better than it has in the past.
The all-work test was an abomination, but if hon. Members are concerned about what new regulations are to take its place, let them lobby on that issue in the right place. Clauses 53 and 54 contain no reference to the all-work test. This is the wrong place and the wrong time to raise those objections. I am sure that the Government's plans for checking the gateway into benefits are the right way of dealing with the problem. It is right to consider what people's abilities—rather than disabilities—are now and will be in the future.
It has been mentioned that the Bill does not address the fact that the previous Government took people off unemployment benefit and put them on incapacity benefit. That is entirely true, but it is not the point of what I want to say. I was a member of the Employment Service when there were loads of changes to forms and regulations, taking people off unemployment benefit and putting them on to a range of other benefits, including invalidity benefit and then incapacity benefit.
Civil servants were told that if the questions about people's health and capabilities were answered in a certain way, they should advise the claimant to go elsewhere and claim a different benefit. The effect of that is important in the context of clauses 53 and 54. Anyone who knows about the psychological effects of unemployment and what happens to people who spend a long time without work will know that despair begins to set in after about two years.
People on incapacity benefit are very likely to remain on it for at least that long, away from the workplace and with no future opportunity to reintroduce themselves to the labour market, simply by virtue of the fact that they have been away from it for far too long. Confidence is sapped and they become dependent on the benefit, because all other opportunities seem closed. I do not want people to live that life. A life on benefits is no joke; it is no fun. People on benefits are not well off.
We have a duty to consider whether the qualification for incapacity benefit makes sense. It is an income-related benefit, designed to replace the income that people had when they were fit for employment. It seems sensible to ask what is the link between the period of employment and the period of receipt of benefit.
There must come a time at which we can argue that the benefit is no longer an income-replacement benefit. The Government's proposals make sense. It is not as though the qualification is onerous and difficult. Let us consider someone on average male earnings. It would take that person only four weeks to qualify. Even somebody on the minimum wage would qualify after 12 weeks of employment. That is not an onerous requirement, but it is sensible. It maintains the link between work and the benefit and is not too difficult to achieve. Therefore, I do not find that a mean measure.
3.30 pm
It certainly is not a mean proposal, if we consider it in the context of other benefits to which people are entitled.
I am most concerned about those entitled to income support, and the Bill will add £5.70 to the premium for disability paid to those claiming income support. That is a generous increase and takes account of the fact that people who are likely to suffer ill health for some time face extra costs. However, it does not make sense to argue that those costs should be covered by a national insurance contributory benefit. It is right not to leave people floating on a sea of despair, and I would not support any measure that did so. However, the Bill would introduce stability into the system and people would know exactly where they stood in relation to work and their incapacity.
The impression has been given this afternoon that people on incapacity benefit are permanently disabled. That is not always the case and some people will improve. It would be wrong for the House to leave the impression that we have been talking about all disabled people in all circumstances, because that is not the case.
I have been concerned to hear people talking about income support in the way that it has been talked about in the past, which—when I worked in the benefits system and for a welfare rights organisation—caused me great despair. Income support is sometimes stigmatised, but that does a great disservice to all recipients of income support. All people should be treated with dignity, including those who have to claim income support.
Income support is claimed because an individual has no other income. That is the whole point. When I considered the issues before the House today, I looked at their impact on the very worst off, but the amendments do not address that issue. Nothing in the amendments would redistribute funds to the worst-off. The only redistribution would be the redistribution of the £5.70 increase in the disabled premium on income support.
I started my speech by saying that I was proud to have supported the Government on the Bill. My view has not changed during the debate, although I have listened with interest to the various contributions. I urge those hon. Members to reconsider their remarks in the light of the totality of the Bill and all that it can achieve. It would be easy to support all the wonderful measures that have been discussed this afternoon, but hon. Members have been cherry-picking with gay abandon. They have walked through the cherry orchard with their baskets and enjoyed every minute. However, the baskets need to be filled by the Bill and all its clauses.

Mr. Howard Flight: The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) presented an argument that all fair-minded hon. Members must surely accept. The arrangements proposed in clauses 53 and 54 would not just means-test the benefit against pensions but would affect whether someone could take a pension early. If people can take their pensions early, they would be disqualified from incapacity benefit. That is morally wrong. If people take their pensions—for which they have saved during their lives—early, the price they pay is a substantially lower pension for the rest of their lives. Under the Bill, if people choose not to take their pensions early so that they can look after themselves in old age, they will not be entitled to incapacity benefit. That is unacceptable, even for those who can stomach the concept of means-testing pensions per se.
Other hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that the changes in the national insurance contribution rules will have perverse effects. The changes are likely to hit people who have debilitating diseases, and spouses—both male and female—who stop work, whether to care for children or an ill spouse. The changes will encourage anyone who may be vulnerable to leave work and get the benefit before they are at risk. The proposals would not even achieve the objective that the Government claim they are seeking to achieve.
I attended Prime Minister's Question Time on Wednesday and the Prime Minister made the point that it was outrageous that one in four retired men draws incapacity benefit. He made the party political point about unemployment benefit versus incapacity benefit, but he also suggested that the system of medical examination could not be working if it delivered that figure. If the Government's primary objective is to stop wrong assessments or people milking the system, the proposals would not achieve that. They will create a different regime for the future, but they will not tidy up what is wrong today. To justify clauses 53 and 54 on those grounds is a travesty of the argument.
It is not acceptable for anyone who seeks to take a fair approach to camouflage what is a cut of £570 million—which will be achieved by imposing harsh and probably perverse tests on qualifying for incapacity benefit—with all the other arguments. I cannot see how Labour Members can support this measure, given the commitments they made when the Conservative party made certain mistakes on the issue of means-testing.

Audrey Wise: The social security system has three components which are contributory benefits, such as pensions; non-contributory benefits, which are paid for a particular circumstance, such as child benefit or, at the moment, severe disablement allowance; and means-tested


benefits which the Labour party have always regarded as a safety net. All three components are necessary and important.
The current proposals to which we object would materially alter the balance between the three components. We have been told that clause 53, which reduces eligibility for incapacity benefit by changing contribution record rules, is being introduced because people should be recently in touch with the labour market. However, contributions records are a poor guide to whether people are in touch with the labour market, or even in it at all. Many people, particularly women, work part-time below the contributions threshold. There are many reasons for part-time work. Women may take it because of child care or it may be all that they can get. They be unwell but want to keep on working as much as they can.
Although those people are below the contributions threshold, they are in the labour market. However, the Bill rules them out. Some 180,000 women have two part-time jobs, both of which fall beneath the contributions threshold. Are we telling them that they are ineligible because they are not in touch with the labour market? Can they have two jobs and still not qualify? Contributions records are a poor guide.
Why should a recent record be required in any case? Someone may have paid for 20 years and still be rendered ineligible by clause 54. Someone else may have paid only one year's contributions, but still be eligible. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the relationship between benefits and contributions? The clause makes nonsense of the contributory principle.
Some people may be unwell, but continue to work to the best of their ability. What advice should we give to constituents in that case? If the clause is enacted, we should benefit them by suggesting that it would be safer to cease work while they qualify. 1 do not want to give people that advice. I do not have to do so now. I can tell people to keep on working, and I believe that it is best for people to work if they can.
We have heard some extraordinary statements about incapacity benefit, implying that loads of people are on it just because they decided that it would be nice. We are told that people take early retirement and go on incapacity benefit. We are told that there are so many people on the benefit because it is a substitute for unemployment benefit.
In fact, the big problem of social security is how complicated it is. There are many different benefits and qualifications, and names of benefits change. It is true that the Tories tried to get people off the unemployment register and on to sick benefits, but incapacity benefit did not then exist. Invalidity benefit was created for that purpose.
Incapacity benefit came into being in 1995 because the Tories wanted to reverse the position. We opposed it vigorously in 1995, deploring the fact that many people who qualified for sick pay would no longer qualify. In a Labour party briefing we said:
There will be a new and more stringent functional test of incapacity under which many people will lose entitlement to benefit.
We did not say that people could go on to the benefit just because they fancied it or wanted to retire early. We said that a new and harsh rule was being introduced by the

Conservatives. It was not me who said so, but a brief from Labour's economic secretariat, red rose and all. Labour Members were all encouraged to think those things, because they were true.
Now, we are told that people are on incapacity benefit because they have taken early retirement. In 1995, we said:
There is growing evidence that concerns about the new benefit will mean that many people will choose to take out private insurance, at considerable personal expense, rather than risk the uncertainties attached to the new eligibility test.
We were saying that incapacity benefit would force people to take out private occupational insurance to gain themselves a pension because they would be deprived of benefits.
Over the years, a lot of people, encouraged by the trade union movement, have taken occupational pensions. Trades unions have demanded proper superannuation benefits and so on. The private part of the retired person's income has gradually increased. We said that that process would be hastened for the wrong reason by Tory cuts. Now, however, we say that everyone who has taken out private insurance or who has a good occupational pension that will give them something decent when they retire, even if it is early, will be too well off. Never mind that they have paid through national insurance for many years.
Having between £5,000 and £9,000 is defined as being too well off. Some of us say that we could do with a bit of redistribution, but we do not mean redistribution from some disabled people to some other disabled people. We want redistribution from those who are really well off, but we are told that that is politically unacceptable. All sorts of arguments and non-arguments are used, but that is a no-go area for us. If there is to be redistribution, it should be through the tax and contributions system, not by taking money from some allegedly less-deserving chronically sick or disabled people and giving it to chronically sick or disabled people whose conditions are even worse. That is not the sort of redistribution that I want, and nor do I think that the population wants it.
3.45 pm
Restrictions, the 50 per cent. tax on occupational pensions over £50 and matter of the contributions records are dealt with in amendment No. 12, to which 68 of my hon. Friends have put their names. I do not know whether amendment No. 7, which amends clause 56, will be pressed to a vote, but I should certainly vote for it. If it is not divided on, I shall regard my vote on amendment No. 12 as standing as a proxy for that amendment because clause 56 is also objectionable.
I know that the youngest people are passported on to incapacity benefit. That is great, and I am all in favour of it. I do not even ask that the same should be done for the rest. All I ask is that we preserve the status quo for the rest. Mark my words: the amendments are not about making improvements; they simply preserve benefits that people have at present, and I think that no one receives excessive benefits.
One problem with benefits is that their names change. I have been around a fair time, and I was here when the precursor of severe disablement allowance was introduced


by the last Labour Government—we could talk about pride in Government then—on 21 November 1974. Barbara Castle said that it
will provide new, non-means-tested help for those of working age who are deprived of the opportunity to earn their living and who have no rights under existing contributory insurance schemes.
It was, she said, a brand new benefit. She said:
This is quite an historic moment. We have made an important breakthrough here. These are only the first steps towards a new policy for the disabled over a wide field. These first steps bring a new non-means-tested security to nearly 250.000 people whose needs we have neglected for too long."—[Official Report, 21 November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 1555.]
I do not want to be in this House at another historic moment—when that benefit, which was so proudly introduced, is removed by this Labour Government. I do not think that that was what was meant when it was said that this was the first step in a new deal for disabled people—not at all.
We hear that the amount spent on disabled and chronically sick people has increased. It is a lot more than it was in 1974. It has gone up and so it should have, because it used to be disgraceful. The activities of Labour Members, who increased eligibility and introduced new benefits, paved the way for it to increase. That is not a cause for complaint. It has given people a new dignity and new rights. It is part of the reason why so many disabled people are now in a position to assert themselves, and they do so. They claim their full humanity.
I do not want to be a part of any backtracking. It is not enough to say that we are improving the situation for some people. Of course, I welcome that and our amendment would not destroy that. At the moment, we will be spending rather more than we were, which is good, but we will gradually be saving at the expense of some of the disabled and the chronically sick and I object to that.
It seems extraordinary that we are told that we cannot cherry-pick. I do not see this Bill as a cherry orchard in any case. Surely, the purpose of the parliamentary process is to consider legislation and, if one decides that it is good, to support it, but if one decides that it is a terrible error, to say so and act on it. One acts on that, even if it is against one's own Government.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) reminisced about the time shortly before we came to the House when child benefit was in prospect. I remember that vividly. I have looked round and tried to see a fellow face who was here at that time, who would share my memories. I will share my memories with all my right hon. and hon. Friends. Child benefit was the brainchild of Barbara Castle, who originally tagged it with the name child endowment, which then became the prospect of child benefit. However, we were told that there was a snag and that the trade unionists did not like the measure because it would transfer money from the wallet to the handbag, so it would be dangerous. We were told that some of our supporters might not support us if we introduced child benefit because we were abolishing the child tax allowance. We were told that it was, "dangerous."
Talk about pressure—we were a very tight House then and at a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party in 1976, those of us who were campaigning for the rapid

introduction of child benefit were told by the then Prime Minister, Jim Callaghan, that if we persisted, he would resign and there would be a general election three weeks hence. Compare that with the pressure today. We stuck and child benefit was introduced. The Prime Minister did not resign and there was not a general election in three weeks—it was another three years and then, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said, all the candidates were able to stand with pride on a platform of improvement for children.
I do not want my hon. Friends to feel that the only way to be loyal to our Labour Government is to accept without question everything that comes from those on the Front Bench. It is also our duty to try to improve our Government's legislation. When all is said and done, we are here to represent our constituents.
I do not ask those hon. Members who do not agree with the amendments to support them. Those who do not agree and who feel that they have a legitimate argument, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), should vote the amendments down by all means—that is their duty. However, I suggest to all those who feel uneasy about stepping back and removing existing rights that the best way to feel at ease with oneself in these circumstances is to support our amendment. I hope that quite a lot of my hon. Friends will be in that Lobby tonight.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: This afternoon's debate is similar to the debate that we had at a similar time, but in the morning and not the afternoon, a few days ago. In great part, it has been illuminating to those of us who care about the history of political parties. We have heard from Labour Members passionate and powerful speeches about the Labour party discovering itself.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) also said something about the Conservative party; he accused us of being the Unification church. I for one would remind him that the religion of which he is one of the prime advocates in this country also believes in the road to Damascus. The Conservative party has gone through that sort of conversion. [Interruption.] Yes, we have, because we made an honourable, and dreadful, series of errors. They were honourable and those on the Treasury Bench should not pout too much at this point because they are susceptible to a similar error today.
The error that we made was to suppose that we could endlessly target, that the result of targeting and means-testing would be that we would deliver a smaller amount of taxpayers' money to a smaller group of people who most needed it and that by those means, we would better distribute income with a lower call on the taxpayers' funds. We were abundantly wrong: we increased dependency and the social security budget, thus increasing the call on the taxpayer. That is the history of the matter.
Today, as on Monday night, we are talking about the direction of change. No one imagines that the measure, the clauses and the amendments will suddenly transform the whole of social security. We all know that it is a question of incremental change of direction. What will be decided when hon. Members from both sides of the House, I hope, go through the same Lobby later this afternoon is whether we are to announce that as a collectivity—all of us in the House—we believe that we have to change direction and move to a position in which


instead of increasing continually the amount of means-testing and dependency, we increase instead the incentive for people responsibly to look after their own affairs so that they do not need to depend so much on benefit.
I merely wish to say that I entered the House two years ago with one great hope above all others—that this would be the Parliament in which we would find, and this phrase is more popular on the Labour than the Conservative Benches, a consensus on this matter, which is of the greatest possible long-term national significance. 1 thought that we had come to a moment when, because we had learned from our mistakes and the Labour party had benefited from the wise advice of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and others, we would be able to agree on a change of direction in social security. This afternoon, we will find out whether there is a sufficient consensus to persuade the Government to live up to those high hopes, which Conservative Members now have of the Government, many Labour Members have and, what is much more important, both of our electorates share—the electorate who vote Conservative and the electorate who vote Labour. That is a national hope. This afternoon, there is a chance that it will be fulfilled or dashed. It is up to Labour as much as to Conservative Members to ensure that it is fulfilled.

4 pm

Mr. Chris Pond: The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) invited Labour Members to join him in the Lobby. One of the main reasons why I will support the Bill as its stands and oppose the amendments is that, after working for 20 years for the poverty lobby and seeing what the Conservatives did to the poorest and most vulnerable, under no circumstances could 1 join them in the Lobby.
The Conservatives say that perhaps they were wrong. A moment ago, the hon. Member for West Dorset was on the Damascus bypass. In the early hours of Tuesday morning, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) offered to slip into a hair shirt, albeit one designed in Savile row. Despite what they are now saying, for 18 years they supported a Government who did much damage to the living standards, hopes and aspirations of the poorest. They were all looking the other way. It was the longest lapse of concentration that we have seen. For 18 years, they did not notice what they were doing. They did not notice their doubling and trebling of the extent of means-testing or their attack on national insurance benefits and the national insurance principle. However much synthetic compassion they can manufacture in this debate for party political purposes, I will not join them in the Lobby. We must ensure that no one forgets what they did in government and what they would do again to the poorest, if they ever had the chance.
What the Conservatives did in those 18 years shapes the welfare reform debate. They created a climate of fear. It is not only the cuts throughout the 18 years; one of the most cynical cuts was the benefit integrity project, introduced only three days before the general election with the explicit purpose of cutting the benefits of the most severely disabled. I am proud that our Government have changed that and are ensuring that people get the benefits to which they are entitled, no more and no less.
I know that few people are listening to the debate, so I can quietly divulge that the Select Committee on Social Security recently went on a junket—to Loughborough.

We get some privileges in this House. We heard about some research carried out by the specialist social policy research unit at the university. We found that currently, disabled three and four-year-old children get only half their mobility costs covered. The Bill will ensure that about 80 per cent. of those costs are covered. It will help children and their families.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does it occur to my hon. Friend that those of us who tabled the amendment, which does not relate to the clause to which he refers, do not follow the logic of telling Labour Members who are concerned about this aspect of the Bill that because we want to do something about disabled four-year-olds, it is necessary to bring in cuts that will affect others who may be older?

Mr. Pond: I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that she will allow me to develop my argument. I do not suggest that those who support the amendment against clauses 53 and 54 are unconcerned about disabled three and four-year-olds. Nor do I suggest that they are unconcerned about the fact that the Bill will help younger disabled people up to the age of 25. However, the debate about the Bill has been shaped by the assumption that all welfare reform is about cuts. That is not the case.
Much of the debate on clauses 53 and 54 has been useful, but it has turned into a discussion of the contributory national insurance principle. It has become a debate about contributory benefits, universal benefits and means-testing. It is a helpful debate which we should pursue, but it does not throw much light on the two clauses. In some ways, one could argue that clause 53 strengthens the insurance principle by ensuring that contributions are much more closely related to benefit entitlement. It may be that other aspects of the Bill go in different directions, but it is a sensible debate which we have to have, and I am pleased to say that the Social Security Committee will have it. Perhaps that can feed into future discussion.

Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman had some sport at the Tories' expense, which is always good fun and we enjoyed it, but the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) asked the most pertinent question. If is wrong to means-test the basic state pension—I believe that it is, and I think that the hon. Gentleman does too—why is it right to means-test incapacity benefit?

Mr. Pond: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will deal with that point when I come to clause 54.
Much heat has been generated, understandably, by both clauses. I want to shed a little light by citing research published last year by the Policy Studies Institute and carried out in early 1997. It considered a group of people who left incapacity benefit, voluntarily or because they had been disqualified under the all-work test, which the Bill also reforms. The largest group—one in three—of IB leavers went into full-time jobs. The second group—about a quarter—went back on to IB a few months later. The linking rules in the Bill and the regulations allow that. A smaller group relied on other benefits, such as jobseeker's allowance and income support
The importance of that research is that it helps us to assess the impact of the clauses. It found that IB recipients fell into two main groups. The first was those who saw


incapacity benefit as a bridge between work and retirement. The second was those who saw incapacity benefit as a short-term earnings replacement. The majority left incapacity benefit to go into employment, normally with an income much higher than IB.
The people in the first group were predominantly those who had been on IB for a considerable period. They had been written off, lacked hope and found it much more difficult to go into employment afterwards. The second group tended to be newer claimants. That is relevant because clause 53 applies to new claimants, the group who, with, I hope, the assistance of the new deal, the single work-focused gateway, the tax credit for the disabled and other Government measures, will he assisted to get into employment. As many hon. Members have said, the Bill applies to new claimants in that respect. That is the group that the Policy Studies Institute says should be given every assistance to make the transition back into work. Perhaps as a result of that research, that is what the Government are doing.
The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) asked about means-testing the basic state pension and incapacity benefit in relation to occupational pensions. Let us consider the treatment of both. As my hon. Friend the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) pointed out, clause 54 proposes the withdrawal, above a certain level, of incapacity benefit for those with an occupational or personal pension. The Green Paper suggested a £50 disregard and a 50 per cent. withdrawal rate. Those figures are not in the Bill, as the Secretary of State said. It may be sensible to consider them in the context of the review of capping and savings limits in social security generally. However, let us take those figures as read for the moment—a £50 disregard and a 50 per cent. withdrawal rate. Hon. Members will note that, once one starts to receive the state pension, there is a 100 per cent. withdrawal rate of incapacity benefit and no disregard whatever.

Mr. Field: Is not my hon. Friend confusing two things? The first is that people should not receive two benefits for the same cause—therefore, they can draw only one. The second relates to the question put by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb): if it is right to withdraw incapacity benefit, why is it not right to withdraw the retirement pension?

Mr. Pond: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I have enjoyed working with him over the years; no doubt I shall continue to do so during these debates. My point is that, if the benefit were now being devised, given the number of people who now receive occupational pensions and the fact that a considerable proportion of them—about a quarter—draw those pensions before retirement age, I suspect that, although the situation was different in 1971, a measure of this sort would have been built into those earlier provisions.

Mr. Simon Burns: Rubbish.

Mr. Pond: From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman suggests that that is rubbish.

Mr. Letwin: I have a genuine question. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there is no disincentive to save, if benefits are so constructed that those who save receive fewer benefits?

Mr. Pond: Several hon. Members have made the point that if we are to offset occupational or personal pensions against incapacity benefit, presumably some years in advance of that—in some cases, some decades in advance—people would have to make judgments about whether it was worth saving because, if they did so, their national insurance contributions would buy less. I suggest that most people who make decisions about saving for an occupational or personal pension are planning to save for their retirement—something that they can predict will happen. They do not insure themselves against the possibility that they will become disabled or incapacitated a few years before they reach retirement age.
As other hon. Members have pointed out—it was certainly made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak—only about a third of incapacity benefit recipients receive non-state pensions. Of those, four in 10 would be unaffected by clause 54. That means that eight out of 10 of those recipients will not be affected at all.

Mr. Berry: Given that the possibility of becoming unable to work is uncertain—as my hon. Friend points out—is not that an even greater reason for not means-testing a benefit that arises due to unforeseen circumstances?

Mr. Pond: The point is that, when people are saving for their retirement in the form of an occupational or personal pension, that element of savings is not there to offset the possibility of becoming incapacitated. There may be many other ways of saving to meet that risk and other reasons for saving, but that is not one of them.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Pond: No, I want to finish my remarks. I have made some specific points on the clauses and I know that other Members want to speak.
For many years, I have argued for welfare reform. I defy any Member of the House to tell us that the social security system, as it currently operates, works perfectly in every respect. None of us believe that to be the case. All of us believe that some changes should be made. If we are committed to the idea of welfare reform, we cannot simply leave the current system in place and add a few bolt-on extras. We shall have to make some difficult decisions; we must modernise the system and put right some of the mistakes of the past. I believe that the clauses and the Bill will do so.

Mr. Mark Oaten: I speak in favour of amendments Nos. 5, 3, 6 and 7, tabled in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. I want to make it clear that the Liberal Democrats have strong objections to clauses 53, 54 and 56.
I am surprised that we are holding this debate. When the rumours of these changes were growing—sadly, in the national press—about 18 months ago, I could not believe that there would not be some form of concession from the


Government. Even at the 11th hour, during the past 10 days or so, I have been surprised that the Government have not chosen to grant some moderate concessions. I do not want make great play of Monday night's events, but the Government have shown almost a pleasure in driving through some of their policies without being prepared to listen to the many arguments that have been put forward.
I do not want to be too harsh on the Government. One of the good things that has come from the debate is that Members on both sides of the House have not chosen to make a cheap football out of issues relating to disabled people. The quality of the debate has been excellent. However, I point out to the Government that there is a sense of arrogance: although I can understand that they want to reject the arguments of the Opposition parties, I find it strange that they have chosen to ignore the arguments that have been put forward by some 68 of their own Back Benchers.
In that connection, I praise the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) for the superb and excellent speech with which he introduced the amendments. I praise also the integrity of the Members who signed those amendments; many of them have a record in the House of fighting hard on disability issues. They have shown that they put those issues almost above party politics. They should be commended for that action. I can understand that the Government might even reject the calls of some those Members. However, I am surprised that although they are prepared to listen to and to work so closely with organisations such as the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, Scope and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—RADAR—when it does not suit them to listen, they turn down the requests that were put so strongly by those groups.
Much that is in the clauses goes against the Government's own thinking. I and other hon. Members spent Tuesday morning and this morning attending the final Committee sittings on the Disability Rights Commission Bill. I warmly praise what the Government have been doing to enhance the rights of disabled people. The Government should be praised for that; they have taken action fast—within two years of coming into power. However, there is a contradiction. On one hand, they have made good progress, but, on the benefits side, they are not able to be consistent with their principles of working for disabled people. Disabled people tell me that it is all very well to have enhanced rights, but, if one does not have enough money to live on each week, some of those rights are pretty hollow.
Against that backdrop of organisations saying that the Government are wrong, we must examine why they persist in going ahead with these changes. The Government's argument is that welfare spending is out of control and that far too many people have been taking up incapacity benefit. However, is it not the case that, in recent years, that trend has declined? Perhaps we are beginning to see the kicking in of reforms made by previous Governments.
We are left with the conclusion that the reason for the changes is not the welfare of disabled people and that the only reason is to try to save money, even though the problem may not necessarily exist. What disappoints me about the debates that have taken place during the past 18 months is that we might not have spent as much time as we should have done in examining whether there is

a problem. We have assumed that the problem exists. We have certainly not spent as much time as we should have done in examining the gateway for those benefits.
The all-work test is a bad test; it is rightly being replaced with a different test. However, perhaps that new test is also wrong and we should put some more work into examining it. There is a contradiction: the Government claim that individuals are trying it on—trying to get a benefit to which they are not entitled—but, on the other hand, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security clearly stated in Committee that he did not envisage that, under the new test, there would be any change in those who would be entitled to the benefit. We should do more work on that matter.
I was interested in the point developed by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). He said that although the benefit integrity project had been flawed, perhaps the policing of benefits and of the gateway was not yet right. I hope that the replacement for the benefit integrity project will go some way to address that point. I draw the conclusion that it would have been wiser for the Government to have waited for a few years so that some of the changes could bed down. They should have waited to see whether the trends that were identified would decline, whether the new capability test would make a difference and whether the problem that they sought to solve through these measures existed in the first place.
Clause 54 goes to the heart of the means-testing principle that concerns many hon. Members. The Government are in a ridiculous situation. On the one hand, they are trying to create a society in which individuals are thrifty and put money aside. Yet, on the other hand—despite the comments of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond)—they are sending a clear signal through these changes that there is no incentive to save. As a result of the changes, a couple on a combined income of £10,000 will not be entitled to receive benefit. That seems strange given that that income figure falls below the poverty line. The Government surely did not intend to put such a couple in that position.
If the Government insist on going down this route, we call on them, at this eleventh hour, to change the threshold at which the changes will kick in. The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) said that the £50 figure is not on the face of the Bill. May I derive some hope from that comment? When the Secretary of State responds to the debate, will he compromise for the first time and change the figure? I heard the Secretary of State say via various media outlets that he did not have to decide on a figure until 2001. Let us hope that he will say today that the £50 figure is wrong, and that a higher threshold will ensure that the burden is easier and fairer.
Clause 53 introduces a double standard. If new Labour made one thing clear, it was their desire to try to change the benefit culture, and to introduce a contract between the citizen and the state that said, "You will get something out if you put something in". These changes clearly contradict that approach. As the hon. Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) said, it must be wrong that someone's contributions spanning 10, 15 or 20 years will be wiped out and ignored. Why did such people bother to contribute at all? What was the point, if they will not receive benefit because they have not applied two years before they claim? That makes a nonsense of the years of making contributions. I do not believe that that measure was in the Labour manifesto. I certainly do not believe that Labour


Members and the many millions of people who voted for them could have envisaged the introduction of this major change to contributions so early in a Labour Administration.
It is disappointing that the Government were not prepared to accept in Committee some sensible amendments that would have at least reduced the impact of the changes. During 64 hours of consideration in Committee, the Government did not make a single concession. It is the first time that I have served in Committee, and two months into the process, I wondered why I was wasting my time. The Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), could not have been more reasonable, but they did not move an inch. Perhaps that is the Committee's fault. It might have been more constructive if the Committee's membership had reflected more clearly the opinion within the Labour party. We could then have had a healthier debate in Committee.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman mentioned a threshold figure of £50. What kind of threshold would be acceptable to his party: £100, £150 or £200?

Mr. Oaten: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to suggest a figure. That would imply that I am in favour of the proposal; I am not. I would not want to suggest any figure because I think that the measure is wrong. We offered the Government a compromise on a bad system, and any revised figure should not see individuals with an income of £10,000 who are on the poverty line fall short of benefit. The Government should at least increase the figure above that point.
Amendment No. 3 suggests that, rather than stating that contributions must be made in one of the two years before the benefit kicks in, the Government should allow at least one year in the 10 previous years. That is a simple amendment which would reduce the negative impact of the changes.
I hope that the Secretary of State will address the important issue of carers raised by the hon. Member for Preston. While we welcome the fact that the Government have acknowledged that it will be difficult for carers to build up national insurance contributions and have provided a linkage with the carers allowance, it is estimated that only 400,000 out of 5 million carers in this country receive carers allowance. What will happen to the carers who do not have that link? How will they access incapacity benefit?
Amendment No. 7 offers the House the opportunity to reverse the decision to abolish the severe disablement allowance. That is an essential safety net, and the Government's proposed changes will mean that 16,000 people will lose out each year. Time is short, and the hon. Member for Preston developed that point very clearly. Other hon. Members may wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to emphasise that point.
We will push the matter to the vote. We feel strongly that the Government have not thought through the proposals. They have tried to solve a problem that I suggest is not there. The Government have missed good opportunities to develop the welfare state in new ways and

they have broken some important principles in relation to contributions and means testing. In doing so, their actions have been extremely unfair. My party and I are left with the sad conclusion that this Bill is about the interests of the Treasury, not the welfare of disabled people.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Few Labour Members—including me—would argue against the need for substantial reform of the social security system, given our inheritance from the Conservative party. The previous Government reduced the system to a means-tested, low-grade safety net for the poor. That reform option was specifically ruled out in the Green Paper, and rightly so.
Yet, as many of those who responded to the consultation process—including Age Concern—pointed out, the Government failed to review the welfare state comprehensively. Instead, they advanced proposals without discussing alternative principles. Those groups said that the Green Paper failed to discuss clearly the role of social insurance, universal benefits and means-testing within the social security system. Much of today's debate has focused on the social insurance principle and means-testing. Labour Members have fought hard for years to preserve the contributory principle, so I am saddened to see that we have abandoned that principle today.
Far from criticising support for the amendment as cherry-picking, I argue that the amendment will act to support the Government's aim of providing work for those who can and security for those who cannot. We welcome the new deal that encourages people to enter work and to save. That is an essential part of a welfare reform package. We welcome also the additional assistance for young people who are severely disabled, and I acknowledge that the linking law will ameliorate some of the effects of these changes. They are good measures. However, it is counter-productive to their fundamental aims for the Government to alter the contribution requirements and to means-test incapacity benefit.
4.30 pm
We argue that our aim is to modernise the social security system, and we should modernise a system that was set up at a time when families had one breadwinner—usually the man—and wives stayed at home and looked after the children. However, one income is no longer adequate, and very few people are fortunate enough to stay in one type of employment for most of their lives, which was commonplace when the Beveridge reforms were introduced. Instead, we have so-called flexible working, job insecurity and many part-time jobs.
We must not forget that even people who are being paid the minimum wage and are working 16 hours a week—that is classed as full-time work for the purposes of means-tested social security benefits—still do not earn enough to meet the lower earnings limit and do not, therefore, pay national insurance contributions. We have insecurity, or flexibility, yet far from modernising the system to create a contribution requirement that would reflect that flexibility, we are introducing rigidities for contribution requirements. We are doing exactly the opposite of modernising the system to reflect the modern-day experiences of people in the workplace.
We also want to encourage people to be self-sufficient and thrifty and to save for the future. How can means-testing incapacity benefit help to achieve that?


The majority of disabled people do not have pensions. Surely we want to encourage them to take out pensions. If we do not, they may, when they retire, receive some incapacity benefit, but they will have failed to provide additional resources, so they are likely to depend on other means-tested benefits, which will cost the state more.
Under the Tories and their salami-slicing policies, we learned that the more means-testing—which allegedly targets those most in need—is introduced, the more expensive the system becomes. That is not only my opinion, but that of many people, including representatives from the private sector. It is interesting that, in its submission to the Green Paper, the Association of British Insurers said:
The interrelationship between state benefits and what insurance companies can offer needs to be properly understood by government, by insurance companies and by the public. A stable framework is needed in which people can make plans which will not be disrupted by a subsequent change of government policy. People naturally are resentful if, for example, having saved for a specific welfare need, they then discover that they have been wasting their money and that they would have obtained the same benefit from the state for nothing. Conversely, if people have reasonably expected that the state will provide, they are aggrieved if suddenly the state decides not to provide.
The private sector, which wants to encourage people to save, recognises the disincentives that are created in the social security system. That point was made time and again in submissions to the consultation paper.
The Department of Social Security's summary of the 340 responses to the disability benefits consultation paper said that the issue most frequently raised was the perceived unfairness of taking into account income for which people have already contributed against a benefit that is also earned through the payment of contributions.
Contrary to the impression that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) tried to give, the people who will be affected by the measures are not rich people with enormous pensions. If they have pensions, those pensions are relatively small, and although the Secretary of State correctly stated that 44 per cent. of people on incapacity benefit are in the top two quintiles of the earnings table, that does not take account of the fact that their income includes disability living allowance, which is supposed to reflect the additional costs of being disabled. That benefit pushes people higher up the earnings table. That applies only to people who already have occupational pensions. The majority of people on incapacity benefit have below-average incomes; only 25 per cent. are in the upper 40 per cent. of the income range. That demonstrates that, on the whole, people who have disabilities have a shorter working life and one in which they are able to earn less than other people.
Such people, who do not have savings and who perhaps have a progressive illness and know that their working life will be curtailed, will be listening to the debate. Many have in the past responded to exhortations to save for the future and today will be wondering why they should bother. That is why I argue that targeting does not, in the long run, save money in benefits, but costs more.
Last week, the Prime Minister, in his tribute to John Smith, said:
One of the first acts of his leadership was to establish the Social Justice Commission on healing the divisions of the Conservative years".

It is interesting to read the social justice commission's comments about welfare reform. It said:
In our view, the Social Security system should be built upon the foundation of social insurance.
It considered the arguments of some of my hon. Friends that it is best to target benefits on those who most need them, but said:
It is often argued … that a simpler and cheaper solution to the problems of the Welfare State would be to means-test all benefits so that they go only to the people who 'really need them'".
It went on to say that
the strategy is fatally flawed".
It then said that
means-tested benefits, which cannot prevent poverty are also remarkably inefficient at relieving it … Moreover, these benefits are extremely expensive to administer … a further disadvantage of means-testing is that it penalises savings … instead of providing a predictable and stable financial base from which people can deal with change, means-tested benefits create further insecurity".
That echoes the comments of the Association of British Insurers. The commission said also that means-tested benefits
deepen the problem of social exclusion
that this Government are committed to eradicating.
I appeal to Ministers to listen to those arguments. If we are aiming to deal with dependency and trying to bring people who were excluded during the Tory years back into the mainstream of society, we should think again about the measures in clauses 53 and 54.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I have been listening with interest to my hon. Friend, and I have been reading as much as I can on this subject in the past week. I noted that, following the publication of the Crossman paper, it was said that people were willing to pay through the contributory system because they felt that they were storing up something for their family for the future, but they would not want to pay through direct taxation. Clause 53 clearly breaks the link between benefits and the contributions that people make over their lifetime, and is likely to make people wonder whether the contributory system has anything to offer them.

Dr. Jones: My hon. Friend is exactly right. I wish that the Secretary of State and Ministers would consider not only the consultation on the Green Paper, to which I have referred, but the results of their research on public attitudes to the welfare state and the response to reform, which clearly demonstrates that there is considerable public support for the social insurance principle. There is a strong feeling that those who have paid into the national insurance system should be able to gain from it when the need arises, regardless of circumstances.
In that research, members of the public pointed out to the Government that means-testing was not only expensive for the state, but intrusive for individuals. The public regard means-testing as unfair, because the low thresholds might have the effect of arbitrarily excluding people who are in genuine need, but who narrowly fail to qualify. Many pensioners feel that way about the failure of the state pension to keep up with means-tested benefits. They resent the fact that, if they have a small occupational pension, they are deprived of the benefits received by people who have not saved.
The research showed that the majority of people considered that, if there was to be means-testing, it should take place on the way in, by requiring higher earners to pay higher contributions, instead of on the way out, by limiting payouts to those on low incomes and with low savings.
The research that was carried out for the Department of Social Security acknowledged that some people would like benefits to be targeted on those with a low income and low savings, but the overwhelming majority—69 per cent.—consider that a person's contribution record is more important than their means in determining entitlement to benefits.
The social justice commission also considered disability benefits. Its report says that the requirements for a comprehensive disability income are twofold. First, it should compensate disabled people for the additional expense of being disabled, by offering a tax-free benefit based on up-to-date evidence of living costs, including the additional costs that disabled people must meet. Disability living allowance is such a benefit, although the social justice commission commented on its many inadequacies.
Secondly, as disabled people are much more likely than others to be unemployed or only partially employed, a comprehensive disability income should offer some compensation, in the form of a taxable benefit, for the loss of earnings potential. That is precisely what incapacity benefit was designed to do. It is a taxable benefit, so, rightly, people on a high income are already taxed on it. However, it is designed to reflect the fact that the working years—and often the earnings potential—of people who are disabled are much curtailed.
That is exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak said that the benefit was about. It is about income maintenance. It is about trying to bring disabled people up to the level of the rest of us. A measure of the success of that policy should be whether disabled people have the same range of income as non-disabled people. I put it to my right hon. and hon. Friends that if we are to end discrimination against disabled people, we should ensure that they have the potential to earn an income similar to that of people who are not disabled but in the same type of job.
I fear that the Government are out of touch with public opinion on the issue. For the sake of saving, ostensibly, £700 million in the long run, they will greatly damage the social insurance principle. They will discourage saving. The advice that the Government are giving those people who might qualify for incapacity benefit, but who are struggling to continue to work and perhaps retraining, is, "Give up work and go on benefit now; because if you do not, you may lose out in future."
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to think again. Reform is needed, and there is a great opportunity to achieve consensus on the way forward. Surely that consensus must be based on what is nationally popular, and that is the social insurance principle, whereby there are contributory benefits for people who contribute while in work, encouraging them to save, to be thrifty and to work hard for the future.

Miss Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on a well-constructed and informative speech.

Mr. James Gray: It was courageous.

Miss McIntosh: As my hon. Friend says, it was a courageous speech.
I, too, support amendment No. 86 and reject clauses 55 and 56. This is a very sad day for the House, and more particularly for the vulnerable people in society, especially the disabled, whom the welfare state, set up all those years ago by the Beveridge reforms, was most specifically designed to help.
I regret that the allocation of time motion has been carried. I suppose that we should be grateful for the presence this afternoon of the Secretary of State, and benefit from his presence. However, I believe that my constituents will find his comments insulting. On Monday evening, I spoke on two separate occasions: first, on the dismantling of the bereavement allowance and, secondly, on the companies that have set up consultancies in the Vale of York as limited companies, especially in the information technology sector, and had written to ask me to intervene in that debate so that their voice could be heard. I know that they will especially resent allegations of a filibuster on Monday evening, coming from a Secretary of State who, for the greater part of the evening, was not even in the Chamber.
The words of the hon. Member for Selly Oak especially struck a chord with me on two counts. The changes to the entitlement to incapacity benefit will penalise those who have saved, and they will constitute an attack on the contributory principle.
As I said on Monday evening—I shall develop this theme in relation to incapacity benefit—I believe that the Government's proposals are an attack on the Beveridge system. They mark a step towards the dismantling of that system, which was set up precisely to help the most vulnerable in society.
I emphasise the fact that the piecemeal reform that the Government are undertaking will not bring the social security bill down. The savings will be pitiful. On the severe disablement allowance, savings in the first year will be only £10 million. Over the whole period of the Parliament, they will rise to only £80 million. On incapacity benefit, savings in the first year will be only £70 million, rising after 10 years to only £700 million. In support of what the hon. Member for Selly Oak said, could the Government not have come before us with a comprehensive reform, or at least the start of one, rather than the piecemeal reform that they have presented to us this evening?
Changing the entitlement to incapacity benefit is simply another extension of the Government's means-testing agenda. Instead of encouraging people to save, they will penalise the very people who are doing so.
I particularly want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), who said that the measure is a breach of contract. For that reason, I simply cannot support clauses 55 and 56. I support amendment No. 86. The Government have no right to breach the contract between the state and the individuals


who have paid their contributions over a number of years. On the grounds that the changes to the entitlement to incapacity benefit will penalise those who have saved and are an attack on the contributory principle, I support amendment No. 86.

Dr. George Turner: While I agree with much of what is being said by those on both sides of the argument, I find that Labour Members have run into a conflict of principles. As was pointed out from the Conservative Benches early in the debate, a conflict of principles is one of the real difficulties of being in government rather than in opposition. I am pleased that there has at least been a good element of listening by those on both sides of the argument during the debate on how we should resolve our conflict of principles.
When the Government are under attack, Back Benchers taking my position—I shall vote with the Government tonight—find that it has a built-in difficulty: if we do not speak as well as vote, it is because we are assumed to be secretly opposed to the Government and not willing to stand our ground; if we speak in support of the Government, we are assumed to be currying favour with the Whips Office. We are damned either way.
During 20 years in local government, I learned that people need to face up to the issues. Those Members who were here in opposition for many years benefited from the fact that every penny could be spent not once or twice, but in every debate. The Liberal Democrats have shown me that for the past two years. The problem with being in government is that we can spend money only once and I believe that that is the core of the difficulty faced by my right hon. and hon. Friends this afternoon.
I do not like means-tested benefits, but I have regularly supported them and so have other hon. Members who are opposing them today. Faced with the problems of the pensioners in my constituency, I have had to accept that, until our economy permits us to do more for all pensioners, we have to offer a minimum income guarantee to pensioners. We have had to say that we will try to identify those most in need and help them.
I do not like means-tested benefits, but as a practical politician who is trying to help Ministers to make difficult decisions, I have to say that if I were to pick a group for which I would relax that principle, it would be the pensioners in my constituency. My difficulty with my hon. Friends who have so ably put the case for those who have been incapacitated—those of my constituents to whom that has happened are often late on in their lives, perhaps over 55—is that, if I am honest, that group would not be my priority.
I understand the case being made for that group, and I understand the case for its being the next to which we look to give largesse, but I have to say that, as many of my hon. Friends have recognised in the debate, the Government have addressed some more pressing needs and areas where Exchequer help is urgently needed to tackle the real problems of major disability, among the young in particular.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) rightly talked about cherry-picking and I believe that Back Benchers must assess where they stand on a Bill, as they do on our manifesto. Who on earth could agree with everything in his party's manifesto? It is not human nature to do so, and I certainly did not do so, but

I accepted the manifesto as a package. I accept that, in the democratic process, we arrive at a conclusion and, to be broad brush, I accept that other people's opinions have sometimes outweighed my individual preferences.
In government, we do not have the ability to be always on the side of the angels. As an agnostic, I do not believe in angels. From my experience in local government, I know that people decide to modernise. Their group agrees with them, they look at new issues to be addressed in government, they identify the growth areas and then agree and vote on them. They then ask, "How will we fund those areas? How shall we address these new priorities?" Only people in opposition can oppose every single means by which people address the big problem.
The problem of local government remains that it is always easy to address new need, but difficult to address the base budget. It is difficult for people who fought for needs to be addressed in the society of a decade ago to accept that those needs may no longer be the priority of the day. I believe that the Government have set about tackling that.
Some difficult decisions will have to be made, but I believe that, ultimately, we owe it to the people whom we represent to make those decisions. If there is one group of people who can tell me about the need for welfare reform, it is a group whom our party has traditionally represented—people on council estates. As part of my constituency work, I regularly visit the homes of those who are too disabled to come to my surgeries. Those are the people whom I want to help–but my goodness, there are "experts" on those estates who specify those whose need for state benefits is, in their view, less than meritorious
.
The Conservatives were in government for 18 years because, all too often, Labour supporters did not believe that we were fit to govern. I feel that facing up to some of the difficult decisions that we must make in government gives us the best opportunity that we shall ever have to benefit those whom we seek to represent—to benefit them in the long term—through the improvements in the economy that we are delivering.
The package in the Bill is one that I, along with other hon. Members, can support with honour.

Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) said that he did not agree with everything in his party's manifesto. Did he tell the electorate that, or is he going to allow it to emerge as a disclosed secret later?

Dr. Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Duncan Smith: No.

Dr. Turner: rose—

Mr. Duncan Smith: All right, I will give way.

Dr. Turner: I told the electorate that I would support the manifesto and vote for measures specified in it, and that is what I shall do.

Mr. Duncan Smith: With respect, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should not make claims that have no basis in reality. I suggest that, when people want to be bold and


brave and to make decisions about what they consider to be right and proper, they should work on that, but not claim subsequently that that is what they did.
This is likely to be our most important debate on the Bill, because it creates the greatest difficulty and generates the greatest interest. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on tabling his amendment, and on speaking to it so well; but the whole debate should be seen in the context of what the Government have been doing throughout the realm of what they call welfare reform.
According to all the latest figures, including the Government's own figures, the social security budget is set to rise faster than the one that the Government inherited, and faster than was predicted in the context of the changes that would render an increase necessary. If it is rising by an average of about 3.3 per cent. a year, that will mean a total increase of £38 billion over the next three years. That is what the Government have done to the social security budget, and that is the most important backdrop to the debate. We should understand why some of the decisions that are being made now are having to be made, and what characterises them.
Let me say something about incapacity benefit, and the changes that are proposed. The rationale that has led the Government, and the Secretary of State, to believe that through means-testing they can reduce overall costs is driven by a short-term need to find the savings that they have apparently failed to find elsewhere. The Government's rhetoric in the run-up to the election suggested that they would cut social security costs so that they could spend more on health and education. In fact, they are doing both—and that is the problem.
What the Government fail to realise in looking at the short term is that the constant extension of the means test is not really the solution at all; indeed, it will be part of the problem. If the application of means test upon means test were the solution, surely it would have worked by now. Successive Governments, of whatever hue—both Labour and Conservative—have tried that approach from various angles. Each time, there has been a growth in social security spending. Therefore, the policy has not worked. I do not know what makes the Government think that, in the narrow case of those on incapacity benefit, it will work. In essence, the process deals with the symptoms, and those are short term. It does not deal with the cause.
5 pm
The Government have decided to impose the means test anyway, which is a bad principle. They have chosen to do it for what they may believe are necessary reasons, but why have they done it in such a perverse way? Why attack, for example, someone who is on a modest income, has made an effort to save, and has tried to take himself out of the position of being dependent on handouts, as he would see it?
Why attack that individual when the Government, the Secretary of State and Prime Minister have said that they wanted to encourage people to save? They wanted to ensure that people lifted themselves out of dependency through saving and providing for their future, but the

Government's measures are a direct attack on their own words, their own principles and on the very type of person whom they hold up as a model.
Are people on £2,600 a year from their pension fund, rising to £9,000 a year, the wealthy people who now have to be struck out? Are they less incapacitated than the person standing next to them who did not make any effort to save? They are going to lose. That, in essence, is what the issue is about. It is not about an across-the-board, fair measure to find a solution.
The Government now seem confused. At first, in Committee, the purpose was not to save money but to be fair. Now, in the briefings to the press and in what we hear from the media, the Government's line is that the measure is to save money, so they have decided to save money by targeting a narrow group. That is why they are so confused.
Surely it cannot be right that people who do not need to save for a pension, who can manage to save in their own way because they are wealthy enough—perhaps through an individual savings account or some shares; at any rate something that is not identifiable as a pension fund, private or occupational—are okay and will have no problem; that people who have made no effort over all the years to save any money, who used to be described perhaps as feckless, who perhaps could not be bothered because they thought that the key thing was to ensure that they could never get caught with enough money to get themselves locked out of benefits, are okay; but that the people who made the effort are not okay.
Then there is the whole business of the two-year rule. I find that utterly perverse. It is a way of suggesting to people who have serious worries about whether they will have a progressive illness that will one day render them incapable of working that they had better make an early decision, because the last thing they want is a broken record of employment in the two-year period. Out go those people as well—not people who want to be out of work, but people who apparently may, through reasons beyond their control, be deposited out of work. Hence the selective and targeted process of the means test is incredibly short term and narrow minded.
Before the Secretary of State and other Labour Members crow about how they are taking the tough decisions and how their solution is the way ahead, I pray in aid two people who agree with me and who the Government believe—or at least they did yesterday—are the key men that they should listen to. The first is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the 1993 Labour conference, he said:
I want the next Labour Government to achieve what in 50 years of the welfare state has never been achieved—the end of the means test".
As recently as 1998 the Prime Minister said:
There are problems if you move to too much means testing.
To which group of people could he possibly have been speaking? Clearly, it was not the Secretary of State or his colleagues because they have taken a different view.
If reform of the welfare state is required—and it is—it must be about finding the characteristics that drive dependency and focusing on them. Before the Secretary of State says, "The Opposition are in favour of reform but do not support us on the tough decisions," I remind him of what happened when the Government decided to cut


the lone parent benefit. It was Conservative Members who went into the Lobby to support the Government, so the Secretary of State should be careful about using that argument. We are prepared to take the tough decisions as long as they deal with the issues relating to serious dependency.
The Government are in a mess of their own making and they will not get out of it by claiming that they will solve the problem by improving pensions. That is not the case. They will simply deliver yet another means test into the pension arrangements. The minimum income guarantee is nothing more than a massive disincentive to saving for someone on a modest income. Anybody on a lower level of income will now end up with a fund that will deliver them less income in retirement than somebody on income support. That is the result of the Government's reform and that is why they will end up with greater dependency.
All that has happened when that process has been employed in the past is that more and more people have found more and more ways to get round it. More of the lobby groups cry out with cases of hardship, and successive Governments have found more and more ways of increasing the benefit. It is a shrill set of rhetoric that will lead to more and more intervention in the future.
The Government's big argument is that there is a serious problem and that some people, apparently, should not be on incapacity benefit. This measure does not deal with that; it leaves those people on the benefit and deals only with those who might receive it in the future.
Worse, the Government are failing in their attack on fraud. Each target has been undershot. They may talk about fraud, but they are failing to deal with it. They talk about people who should not be on incapacity benefit, but they are leaving them on it—if they know who they are—and telling everybody else that it would be wrong for them to be on it.
If the Government's answer is means-testing and more means-testing, clearly they have asked the wrong questions. No matter what the outcome or whether Labour Members decide to support the Government, abstain or vote against them, the Government have lost the argument. I will recommend that in another place every effort be made to return the matter to us.

Mr. Darling: I have no intention of following the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) very far down the road he took. His arguments against the means test might just have a little more substance if it were not for the fact that the Conservatives doubled means-testing during their 18 years in office. The only thing that I found interesting in the hon. Gentleman's speech is that he has confirmed that the Conservative party is against the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. That means that 1.5 million poor pensioners would lose out if the Conservatives were ever to get back into power.
I should first speak briefly to Government amendment No. 31—which is a drafting amendment to clause 54, removing an unnecessary cross-reference to the definition of personal pensions. I shall not say anything more about it, as no one else has.
I should like to set the debate in context, deal with all the points that have been made and, of course, deal with the points that have been made on our proposed reform of incapacity benefit. However, I should first make the

preliminary point—especially for those outside the House who will read reports of our proceedings—that the debate has, on both sides of the House, been very good natured. I realise that right hon. and hon. Members hold different opinions on these matters, but they have very temperately expressed those opinions. It has been a very good quality debate.
The proposals that we published last October, and which essentially are made in the Bill, have two overriding objectives. First, we want to ensure that we provide every possible help to enable those who can work to do so. Work on a decent wage—which we are ensuring through the national minimum wage—is the best way of combating poverty, the causes of poverty, and especially persistent poverty, which is one of the main problems that we have inherited. Disabled people want to work—2 million already do, and 1 million more on benefits say that they want to work. We want to help them to do that.
Our second overriding objective is to provide far greater security than we have provided in the past for some of the most vulnerable people in society who will never work in their lives. The proposals in the Bill are a key part of that strategy and mark a radical change of direction from what the Tories did in their 18 years in office.
I do not want to say much about the Tories. However, I find it very hard to take when they parade before us as the party of the dispossessed, the poor and the disabled, an advocacy that they masked particularly well in their 18 years in office, and when the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) tells us that they have all been to Damascus—it is just as well that it is not in Europe, or they could not have gone there at all—and tries to tell us that he now stands shoulder to shoulder with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise).

Mr. Letwin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Darling: Let us hear about Damascus.

Mr. Letwin: Is the right hon. Gentleman advancing the argument that two wrongs make a right?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman was wrong for 18 years, and he is wrong again today.
We remember how the Tories filibustered and tried to block the Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) to give rights to disabled people. It is this Government who introduced legislation—which was recently given a Second Reading—establishing the Disability Rights Commission.
For the Tories, it did not really matter whether someone was unemployed, sick or disabled. Indeed, for them unemployment and sickness were completely interchangeable—it did not matter. That is why they cynically moved people—a whole generation of people—from unemployment on to incapacity benefit. That is why one quarter of men—double the number of 20 years ago—over 60 are now on incapacity benefit. Those people were only statistics to the Tories, whose record speaks for itself. Therefore, some of us find it very hard to take the Tories' protestations and invitation to some of my hon. Friends to stand shoulder to shoulder with them in the Lobby today.
I do take seriously many of the concerns expressed, both inside and outside the Chamber, by many of my hon. Friends, and I realise the sincerity with which my
hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and, particularly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) expressed their views. However, I profoundly disagree with them, for reasons that I shall explain later.
I also realise that many of the concerns expressed in the House today stem from the effects of long-term structural unemployment—people have low skills and low expectations; a second generation of people are growing up who really do not expect any better for themselves or their children; and children do not expect to do any better than their parents. The Tories saw that as the natural order of things—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, they did. No one should be left to languish on benefits for years.
5.15 pm
We are changing the culture of the system. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) said that we needed a change of culture. I hope that he has noticed the single gateway, which will ensure for the first time that everyone of working age gets the help that they need, with a personal adviser to help them improve their skills, get into work if they can and get the benefits and assistance to which they are entitled. That is an important change of culture.
In our welfare reforms across the board, we are tackling poverty and the causes of poverty in every way possible through the help that we give and the benefits that we provide.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman has not been here for most of the afternoon. I should like to make a little more progress, because I anticipate that there will be interventions on other matters that I want to deal with.
I shall set out what the Government are doing to help people get into work. We introduced the new deal. It was opposed by the Conservatives and the funding was opposed by the Liberal Democrats. In 15 areas we are piloting—

Mr. Duncan Smith: Get on to the amendments.

Mr. Darling: The Conservatives do not want to hear this. We are helping disabled people get into work. We are making work pay. The minimum wage will bring 700,000 women into the national insurance system. The disabled persons tax credit—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There should be silence, with the exception of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Darling: The disabled persons tax credit is worth £155 a week. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) said, we have extended the linking rules that allow people to try out work before they lose their entitlement to benefit. Under the Tories, they had only eight weeks. Under the arrangements that we have introduced, disabled people can try out work for up to two years without losing their original benefit. This week we have extended the disabled

persons tax credit. Someone who has left work because of a disability or an injury and returns to work earning 20 per cent. less than they would have done otherwise will have access to the disabled persons tax credit. The Tories did none of that. All the measures that I have mentioned are new and show the qualitative difference between our approach and that of the Conservatives.
Our second objective is to provide security, because we recognise that there are some who cannot work. The system clearly does not do enough for the most severely disabled people. We are increasing child benefit for everyone. We have invested £2 billion in the new state second pension for carers and for disabled people with broken work records. Costs have been referred to a lot this afternoon. That measure alone represents a £2 billion investment that has not been made before. It is not true that our reforms for disabled people are driven by a desire to save money. We shall save unnecessary expenditure and concentrate help where it is needed. We have a new £22 child credit for children of disabled parents. The disability income guarantee will benefit 175,000 people. The extension of disability living allowance to three and four-year-olds is worth another £35 a week. Our reforms to the severe disablement allowance give more help to severely disabled young people by up to £26 a week. Our approach to SDA—

Mr. Edward Gamier: What about the amendments?

Mr. Darling: The subject is covered by amendments Nos. 7 and 86. Just sit back and listen.
Severe disablement allowance is paid at the rate of £54.40 a week. It is so low that 70 per cent. of people on it have to claim income support. Their SDA does not help them, because every penny of it is taken into account in calculating their income support. The original purpose of the benefit was to help people who never had a chance to work because they were disabled at birth or early in life. That is why we are increasing the benefit for young people from £54 to more than £80 a week. That is an example of looking at benefits, asking whether they serve the purpose for which they were intended and increasing them. Some 175,000 people will gain from that. They also have access to the universal, non-means-tested DLA, which is worth up to £89.95 for the most severely disabled people. We wanted to provide more security for people who, by any view, need our help, and we are doing that.
I wish to refer to the amendments that we are making in relation to incapacity benefit and, in so doing, deal with amendment No. 12 and the others that have been mentioned. While we are providing more help for severely disabled people and more help to get people into work, we want to ensure that the system is brought up to date to reflect changing conditions. As in all of our reforms, none of the changes that we are making will affect people currently getting incapacity benefit. Unfortunately, the newspapers sometimes forget to mention that, but I hope that people will bear it in mind.
We intend to restore the benefit to its original intention, which was to replace income that people lost as a result of sickness and disability. I want to set out how, under the new rules, people will qualify, because there seems to be some misunderstanding—certainly among the Opposition. Under our proposals, people will still be


eligible for incapacity benefit after two years—or, in some circumstances, for as much as three and a half years after becoming unemployed. I believe that the conditions are fair. Someone on average earnings can work for as little as four weeks in all during a two-year period prior to a claim, or 12 weeks for someone earning the national minimum wage.
It is right to link eligibility for incapacity benefit to recent work. There are thousands of people now who satisfy the medical tests for incapacity benefit, but not the contribution conditions—I will return to them shortly—who are on income support, which can, in some circumstances, provide £73 a week, more than the £66 a week for incapacity benefit. The most severely disabled people on income support would also get help from the new disability income guarantee and disability living allowance, which can provide help of up to £90 a week, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) said.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) referred to the medical test, as have one or two of my hon. Friends. Throughout this afternoon, there has been much talk of a perceived lack of consultation. One of the things that I considered was whether we ought to amend the medical test. We are doing so in one way, to which I shall refer in a moment. If anyone thinks that there is some unrest about what we are doing, I can assure them-this was made clear to me by the disability organisations to whom I talked—that if those organisations had thought for one minute that we would try to solve a perceived problem by ratcheting up the medical test to make it more difficult to qualify medically, there would have been just as much trouble. That is not the right thing to do.
We know that there are problems with the all-work test, which is patently subjective. I do not think that the option of ratcheting it up would be right. As part of our reforms in the Bill, we are introducing a new personal capability assessment. What was wrong with the all-work test—a bit of a misnomer—was that it concentrated on what one could not do, rather than on what one could do. Surely our proposal is the sensible way to go.
The hon. Member for Maidenhead referred to someone suffering from multiple sclerosis or a similar degenerative condition. Because of the way in which the contribution conditions are structured, anyone knowing that they were slowly going to come out of the labour market—given what I have said about the number of contributions that would have to be made in the preceding two years—could easily manage their departure from the labour market.
The disabled persons tax credit and the national minimum wage mean that somebody coming out of the labour market that way has more purchasing power and more national insurance contributions than otherwise. Of course, the Conservatives are against the national minimum wage and the disabled persons tax credit—both of which are helping people.
Many hon. Members today have spoken about one of the difficulties, in that people on low wages or with low national insurance contributions will not qualify. Of course, part of the problem is that they do not qualify now. In many ways, this comes to the crux of the problem with the contributory system, which excludes many people who earn low wages. I made it clear in the welfare reform Green Paper—as did my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Red Book—that we want to look at

the relationship between pay and contributions and entitlement to benefit. I can confirm that that study has been going on for some time, because we have to look at the link between low, part-time earnings and benefits in that context. We have already given young women on low earnings access to maternity allowance; it was one of the changes included in the Budget earlier this year.
I want to do more, because we should certainly help those who deserve to be rewarded for doing a little bit of work. I have in mind people who have retired because they are not well, but continue to do a little work. I am not in a position to make an announcement today, but we are certainly considering the problem.

Ms Joan Walley: Will my right hon. Friend take account of the fact that in some of our manufacturing heartlands there is greater unemployment? In my area, we have lost 2,300 jobs in the past 12 months. Will the study take account of the people who are out of work and cannot qualify for IB, although they may be unfit and could be eligible in other parts of the country? Will the Government consider linking the benefit to jobseeker's allowance?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend has taken the trouble to send me some very detailed proposals and I repeat that I will certainly consider them, but I do not want to give undertakings that I cannot deliver. My point was that we need to consider the cases in which people do a very limited amount of work for which they get no credit whatever. The clear message must be that if people are able to work and make that effort, we should be able to reward them.
The fact that we intend to take some account of occupational pensions when considering claims for incapacity benefit is the change that has been the subject of the most attention today. When I have explained the background, I will be happy to answer questions from right hon. and hon. Members.
In 1953, 28 per cent. of people had occupational pensions; now the figure for men is 86 per cent. and for women working full-time about 77 per cent. We have to bear in mind that nearly half the people who retire early on IB, with an occupational pension, are in the higher income bracket—in the top 40 per cent. It is right in principle that there should be a partnership between individuals and the state to share in providing for early retirement because of sickness or injury. There must be an insurance against such early retirement. We should take account of the changed circumstances and create that partnership.
If one were designing a system today, one could not and would not ignore the fact that, for example, almost 100,000 people on IB have an average pension of £230 a week, with incapacity benefit of £66 on top. I do not regard those as the most vulnerable people, as the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said. We are taking account of the fact that people are making their own provision for the eventuality. The principle of partnership, allowing us to direct more resources to people who need the help, seems right to me.
The change will affect only a minority, who will, after all still be £50 a week better off than if they were getting IB alone. I believe that that approach is right. During the debate, many hon. Members expressed concern about the £50 threshold and its taper.

Dr. Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend omitted to mention that 140,000 people on IB have a pension of between £50 and £100 a week. They will be penalised by the changes. He also did not mention that only a third of disabled people—much lower than the average—have occupational pensions. He talks about people being in the higher income bracket. Will he confirm that that includes disability living allowance, which is supposed to recognise such people's additional costs? if we took off that amount, they would be unrepresented in the higher income bracket.

Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but possibly not in the way that she intended. She was leafleting us in the Lobby last night, and I was handed a copy of the leaflet by a well wisher. The figures I have quoted do take account of the DLA. When the Government consulted on the figure of £50, we took account of the fact that 80 per cent. of people on IB have incomes of less than £50. The vast majority will therefore not be affected by the proposal. The Bill will not come into force until April 2001, and it was with that in mind that I told the House earlier this year that
the £50 threshold will be kept under review".—[Official Report, 23 February 1999: Vol. 326, c. 222.]
When the Bill was drafted in January, I wanted to ensure that the £50 level, and the taper, could be kept under review, and that is why the numbers do not appear in the Bill. I was determined to ensure that the principle of partnership was clearly established.

Mr. Chris Mullin: My right hon. Friend rightly identifies this issue as one on which Labour Members feel much unease, including those of us who feel we can live with targeting. What assurance can he give us today that the concern expressed in the House has been listened to?

Mr. Darling: Concern has been expressed, which is why I said in February that I would keep the issue under review. I will have to lay regulations bringing in an appropriate figure towards the end of next year. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall listen to what people have to say. I am bound to consult on the matter and I shall propose a number to the House that I believe is fair and reasonable. I have no hesitation in giving my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks.

Mr. Mullin: For the avoidance of doubt, I wish to confirm that my right hon. Friend is saying that the £50 that is presently proposed—and the rate of clawback—could be adjusted when he brings the regulations to the House in around a year's time?

Mr. Darling: I said that on 23 February. The number does not appear in the Bill because it was always within

my contemplation that it would have to be increased on occasion—[Interruption.] Conservative Members complain about that, but if the number stayed stuck at the same level it would start to cut into people's incomes. I confirm that my hon. Friend's understanding of the position is correct. The principle of partnership and sharing is what is important. The Government will make proposals on the actual amount and the rate of the taper in the second part of next year and the House will have ample time to debate them.

Dr. Nick Palmer: rose—

Dr. Godman: rose—

Dr. Desmond Turner: rose—

Mr. Darling: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) and then I must make some progress, because my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood needs to reply.

Dr. Turner: I am glad to hear that my right hon. Friend has plans to be flexible about the level and the tapers, but will he explain why the only income that will be taken into account for means-testing purposes is pension income to which the person has contributed?

Mr. Darling: It is because people contribute to their pensions and other such savings precisely to make provision for such contingencies. I repeat that it is right that there should be a partnership between individuals and the state to make provision in such cases, although I recognise that some of my hon. Friends disagree with me—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State would assist me if he faced the Chair. Interventions are not helpful at this stage [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!] I am talking about sedentary interventions. I request some quiet while the right hon. Gentleman is delivering his speech.

Mr. Connarty: rose—

Mr. Darling: I would dearly love to give way to my hon. Friend, without any knowledge of what he is going to say, but as I refused to take an intervention from two of my hon. Friends earlier, I cannot give way to him.
I want to cover one further point, spending—[Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like that one bit, and that is why they are heckling. Let me put the Bill in context. This year, we will spend £25 billion on benefits for the sick and disabled. The sum will increase by about £2 billion during this Parliament, mainly because of the growth of disability living allowance.
I ask the House to consider our proposals in the round, including the proposal to give carers and disabled people with broken work records access to the new state second pension, which will be of great benefit to low-paid people. Someone earning £;6,000 a year at present who is on the state earnings-related pension scheme would receive only £13 a week as a pension. Under our proposal, that person would receive £46 a week. That is just one example of how the Government, unlike our predecessor, are helping people who need it most.
Our pension proposals will cost a further £2 billion over the years. The whole package that we are proposing and all that the Government are doing for the disabled are, on any view, fair, balanced and right things to do. They are right in principle and they are right in practice. No matter what the Tories say today, they told us at the weekend that they would pay for their tax cuts by slashing welfare handouts, as they call them. We know that there is a £6 billion black hole in their sums.
Nearly 80 per cent. of DSS spending goes on pensioners, disabled people and children. Before the Tories try to share a Lobby with some of my hon. Friends, they ought to tell us which benefit they intend to cut. Their pretence that they are on the side of the disabled—or anyone else—rings hollow.
The Labour party built the welfare state just after the second world war. It was one of our proudest achievements. One reason why the Government were elected was our determination to safeguard the future of the welfare state. We believe in it. We believe in helping people who have a disadvantage to overcome that disadvantage. We believe in doing more to help them. Hon. Members must look at the whole package in the Bill and at everything that we are doing to help people—the Disability Rights Commission, the disabled persons tax credit, help to stay in the workplace, more money for the severely disabled—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. The House must come to order.

Mr. Darling: The Tories do not like what I am saying. No matter what the reservations of some of my hon. Friends, they know that when it comes to the test, the Government will do more for people with disabilities than the Tories would ever do.
What we propose is fair and reasonable. It does more for the young severely disabled. It does more to help people into work. It brings the benefits system up to date. Such action can be difficult, but it is essential that we do it if we are to maintain people's confidence in and support for the welfare state. 
I acknowledge that many of my colleagues have specific concerns. I have tried to deal with some of them today. I shall try to deal with others in the future. The process of reform takes time, but the amendments, which strike out a substantial part of the Bill, cannot be justified. I ask my hon. Friends to think very carefully before supporting them. Labour Members—even those who support the amendments—have acknowledged all the good that the Government are doing. It is important that the country should understand the good that we are doing, not only for disabled people but for others.
To my colleagues and to the House as a whole, I can say only this: judge us in the round and support our approach today.

Mr. Berry: I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks. He said that the debate had been good natured. That is true, but there are honestly and passionately held differences of opinion on both sides of the debate. I will depart from being good natured only to repeat a point that I made earlier. I will take no lectures from Conservative Members of Parliament about the Government's policy on disabled people.
This Government have done far more than any other for disabled people and they deserve our support. They have the support of all hon. Members who signed amendment No. 12. Indeed, many of us have spent day after day expressing support for the new deal, the Disability Rights Commission, and similar initiatives. I do not want the excellent work that our Government are doing to support equal rights and equal opportunities for disabled people to be cast aside by the public, who will look at clauses 53 and 54 and wonder why a Government who are delivering so well on everything else are planning to cut incapacity benefit for disabled people who are unable to work.
The one thing that we have agreed this afternoon is that this is a debate about benefits for disabled people who are unable to work. What the Tories might or might not have done to shuffle people on to incapacity benefit is totally irrelevant to this debate and has been recognised as such for the simple reason that the clauses are about future, not past, claimants.
If there is an issue about entitlement to incapacity benefit in the sense of whether people are capable of work or not, we should be looking at the all-work test or its successor. I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that disability organisations—through the Disability Benefits Consortium, for example—have consistently said to me and in public, "If your worry is about people swinging the lead, or whatever expression you want to use, then let's discuss that gateway." However, a concern about that is no reason for taking the right to claim benefit away from 170,000 people who are disabled and cannot work because they have not paid contributions in the past two years. It is no case for means-testing either.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: rose—

Mr. Berry: With respect, I do not have time to give way. According to the Department's figures, a total of 335,000 disabled people who are unable to work will lose out. I appreciate the Secretary of State's reference to possible further consideration of the threshold.
I would simply say this to right hon. and hon. Members. The Bill now has to go to the other place, where there will be an opportunity for further debate. I hope that it will be as constructive a debate as we have had this afternoon. I earnestly desire—this is the wish of all those who signed amendment No. 12 and other supporters who did not sign it—that when the Bill returns from the other place, we will be 100 per cent. proud of it and not merely 98 per cent. I earnestly believe that the best way of ensuring—that is too strong a term—or of helping bring that about is to support amendment No. 12 in the Lobby and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to do so.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 310.

Division No. 191]

[5.43 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ballard, Jackie 


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Barnes, Harry


Amess, David
Beggs, Roy


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Beith, Rt Hon A J 


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Benn, Rt Hon Tony 


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Bennett, Andrew F


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bercow, John


Baker, Norman
Beresford, Sir Paul







Berry, Roger
Foster, Don (Bath)


Best, Harold
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Blunt, Crispin
Fox, Dr Liam


Body, Sir Richard
Fraser, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Fyfe, Maria


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gale Roger


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Garnier, Edward


Brady, Graham
Gerrard, Neil


Brake, Tom
Gibb, Nick


Brand, Dr Peter
Gibson, Dr Ian


Brazier, Julian
Gill, Christopher


Breed, Colin
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Godman, Dr Norman A


Browning, Mrs Angela
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burnett, John
Gorrie, Donald


Burns, Simon
Gray, James


Burstow, Paul
Green, Damian


Butterfill, John
Greenway, John


Cable, Dr Vincent
Grieve, Dominic


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Gummer, Rt Hon John



Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hammond, Philip


Canavan, Dennis
Hancock, Mike


Cann, Jamie
Harris, Dr Evan


Cash, William
Harvey, Nick


Caton, Martin
Hawkins, Nick


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Heald, Oliver



Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Chaytor, David
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Chidgey, David
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Chope, Christopher
Hinchliffe, David


Clapham, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Clappison, James
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Horam, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Clwyd, Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Collins, Tim
Hunter, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Iddon, Dr Brian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Illsley, Eric


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Cotter, Brian
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cran, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Crausby, David
Johnson Smith,


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cummings, John
Jones, Ms Jenny


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna
(Wolverh'ton SW)


(Perth)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Keetch, Paul


Davidson, Ian
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Key, Robert


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice &Howden)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Day, Stephen
Kirk Bride, Miss Julie


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Kirkwood, Archy


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Duncan, Alan
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lansley, Andrew


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Leigh, Edward


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Letwin, Oliver


Etherington, Bill
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Evans, Nigel
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Faber, David
Lidington, David


Fabricant, Michael
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fallon, Michael
Livsey, Richard


Fearn, Ronnie
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Llwyd, Elfyn


Fisher, Mark
Loughton, Tim


Flight, Howard
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Flynn, Paul
McAllion, John


Forsythe, Clifford
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
McDonnell, John


McIntosh, Miss Anne





Mackay, Rt Hon Andrew
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Soames, Nicholas


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Mc Loughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Sir Michael


Mc Namara, Kevin
Spring, Richard


Madel, Sir David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stevenson, George


Major, Rt Hon John
Stott, Roger


Maples, John
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stunell, Andrew


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Swayne, Desmond


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Swinney, John


Mates, Michael
Syms, Robert


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


May, Mrs Theresa
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Moore, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Thompson, William


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Moss, Malcolm
Townend, John


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Tredinnick, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trend, Michael


Norman, Archie
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Oaten, Mark
Tyler, Paul


Öpik, Lembit
Tyrie, Andrew


Ottaway, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Page, Richard
Wallace, James


Paice, James
Walter, Robert


Paterson, Owen
Wardle, Charles


Pickles, Eric
Wareing, Robert N


Pollard, Kerry
Waterson, Nigel


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Webb, Steve


Prior, David
Wells, Bowen


Randall, John
Welsh, Andrew


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Rendel, David
Whittingdale, John


Robathan, Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wilkinson, John


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Willis, Phil


Rowlands, Ted
Wilshire, David


Ruffley, David
Winnick, David


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


St Aubyn, Nick
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Salmond, Alex
Wise, Audrey


Sanders, Adrian
Wood, Mike


Sayeed, Jonathan
Woodward, Shaun


Sedgemore, Brian
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)



Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Bill Michie and


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mr. Jim Cousins.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Ainger, Nick
Benton, Joe


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bermingham, Gerald


Alexander, Douglas
Blackman, Liz


Allen, Graham
Blair, Rt Hon Tony


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blears, Ms Hazel


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Blizzard, Bob


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Ashton, Joe
Boateng, Paul


Atherton, Ms Candy
Borrow, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Banks, Tony
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Barron, Kevin
Bradshaw, Ben


Battle, John
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Bayley, Hugh
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon


Beard, Nigel
(Dunfermline E)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Begg, Miss Anne
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)






Browne, Desmond
Healey, John


Buck, Ms Karen
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Burden, Richard
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Burgon, Colin
Hepburn, Stephen


Butler, Mrs Christine
Heppell, John


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Hesford, Stephen


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hill, Keith


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Campbell —Savours, Dale
Hoey, Kate


Caplin, Ivor
Home Robertson, John


Casale, Roger
Hood, Jimmy


Cawsey, Ian
Hoon, Geoffrey


Capman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hope, Phil


Church, Ms Judith
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Howarth, George (knowsley N)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Howells, Dr Kim


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hughes, Ms Beverley Stretford)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Clelland, David
Hurst, Alan


Coaker, Vernon
Hutton, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Cohen, Harry
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Colman, Tony
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Corbett, Robin
Jamieson, David


Corston, Ms Jean
Jenkins, Brian


Cox, Tom
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cranston, Ross
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack
(Welwyn Hatfield)

(Copeland)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Curtis —Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C,)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Denham, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dismore, Andrew
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Doran, Frank
Kemp, Fraser


Dowd, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Drown, Ms Julia
Khabra, Piara S


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kidney, David


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ellman, Mrs Louise
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Ennis, Jeff
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Flint, Caroline
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Follett, Barbara
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lepper, David


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Leslie, Christopher


Foulkes, George
Levitt, Tom


Galbraith, Sam
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gapes, Mike
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Gardiner, Barry
Linton, Martin


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Lock, David


Godsiff, Roger
Love, Andrew


Goggins, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McCabe, Steve


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McCartnev, Rt Hon Ian


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
(Makerfield)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Grocott, Bruce
Macdonald, Calum


Grogan, John
McFall, John



Gunnell, John
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hain, Peter
McIsaac, Shona


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

McLeish, Henry


Hanson, David
McNulty, Tony


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
MacShane, Denis


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mactaggart, Fiona





Mallaber, Judy
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Salter, Martin


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Savidge, Malcolm


Martlew, Eric
Sawford, Phil


Maxton, John
Shaw, Jonathan


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Meale, Alan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Merron, Gillian
Shipley, Ms Debra


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Singh, Marsha


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islilngton S)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Soley, Clive


Mountford, Kali
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Spellar, John


Mudie, George
Squire, Ms Rachel


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Steinberg, Gerry


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Norris, Dan
Stinchcombe, Paul


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stoatea, Dr Howard


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


O'Hara, Eddie
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Olner, Bill
Stringer, Graham


O'Neill, Martin
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Organ, Mrs Diana
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Pearson, Ian
(Dewsbury)


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Perham, Ms Linda
Temple — Morris, peter


Pickthall, Cohn
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pike, Peter L
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Plaskitt, James
Timms, Stephen


Pond, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Pope, Greg
Todd, Mark


Pound, Stephen
Touhig, Don


Powell, Sir Raymond
Trickett, Jon


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverth'ton SE)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Primarolo, Dawn
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Prosser, Gwyn
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Purchase, Ken
Vaz, Keith


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Vis, Dr Rudi


Quinn, Lawrie
Ward, Ms Claire


Radice, Giles
Watts, David


Rammell, Bill
White, Brian


Rapson, Syd
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Raynsford, Nick
Wicks, Malcolm


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Wills, Michael


Robertson, Rt Hon George
Wilson, Brian


(Hamilton S)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Woolas, Phil


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Worthington, Tony


Rooker, Jeff
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Rooney, Terry
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wyatt, Derek


Roy, Frank



Ruane, Chris
>Tellers for the Noes:


Ruddock, Joan
Mr. Mike Hall and


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being four and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 53, line 48, leave out from 'annuities)' to end of line 2 on page 54.— [Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have today witnessed a most significant disaffection in the House. The governing party is split over an important issue affecting severely disabled people. Is it not right that the Secretary of State should come to the Dispatch Box to explain what he will do to change the legislation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has no views about such matters.

New Clause 13

DUTY AS AN EMPLOYER TO OFFER PAYROLL DEDUCTION FACILITY

'.—(1) It shall be the duty of an employer to offer all employees a payroll deduction facility under which he shall, at the request of the employee, deduct contributions to any approved pensions scheme from that employee's remuneration, net of tax.

(2) No charge shall be made to any employee or to any approved pensions scheme in connection with the provision of this facility.—

(3) An approved pensions scheme, for the purposes of this section, means any pensions scheme which shall have been —

(i) approved by the Inland Revenue under Part XIV of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988; and
(ii) registered for this purpose by the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority or by the Financial Services Authority.'.—[Mr. Quentin Davies.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 83, in clause 1, page 2, line 20, at end add —
'(10) Approved Group Personal Pensions shall be deemed to be stakeholder pensions for the purposes of this Part.'.
Government amendments Nos. 42 and 43.
No. 80, in clause 3, page 3, line 41, at end insert —
'(5A) The fifth requirement is that the employer shall require a certificate from the designated scheme to the effect that none of his employees will be admitted to membership of that scheme without evidence that that employee has taken independent advice in relation to his pension provision.'.
No. 81, in page 3, line 41, at end insert —
'(5B) The sixth requirement is that, for the purpose of calculating the income tax payable to the Inland Revenue under PAYE in respect of an employee exercising his option under subsection (5) above the employer shall disregard —

(i) the first £5,000 per annum of any pensions payments made under this section, or
(ii) such amounts as shall be calculated by reference to age-related tables supplied by the Inland Revenue showing the percentage of earnings which may be claimed as tax-deductible contributions to personal pensions schemes,

provided that the employee shall be given the right to choose between £5,000 per annum and the relevant age X2013;related percentage of earnings.'.

Government amendments Nos. 44, 28 and 46.

Mr. Davies: It has been a very dramatic afternoon. Almost anything that occurred — [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The business of the House is continuing. Hon. Members should leave the Chamber quietly.

Mr. Davies: Almost anything that occurred after this afternoon's events would be an anticlimax. Indeed, the events of this afternoon are without precedent in this Parliament —and for quite a long time before that.
The Government have tried to muzzle Parliament using a disgraceful guillotine motion, which denies the House the right to vote individually on Government amendments. We are not allowed to take issue with Government amendments, to select between them or to move our own amendments. If the many countries around the world that so admire British democracy were to learn of the way in which we conduct our proceedings in this place —a Government with a substantial majority have forced through an obnoxious measure affecting disabled people by the use of a guillotine —they would be quite shocked. They would wonder what kind of Parliament we have.
Nevertheless, the voice of Parliament has been heard. It is clear that there is grave concern on both sides of the House about the damage the Government are doing to our welfare system, our national insurance system and to the interests of some very vulnerable people in this country. We have the good fortune to have a two-Chamber legislature in this country, and we all hope that the business that this House has so unfortunately and dramatically left unfinished this afternoon will be taken up in another place and that the right decisions will be made.
6 pm
It now falls to me to speak to new clause 13 and amendments Nos. 83, 80 and 81 in my name and those of my hon. Friends. New clause 13 is in some ways a summation of the Conservative Opposition's views on the Government's stakeholder pension proposals, so it might be sensible if I were to address that last, and proceed to it by dealing first with the other amendments.
Amendment No. 80 deals with the vital matter of the advice that people need when they make the decision, which is crucial to their future, as to whether they should invest in a pension, and if so, what kind of pension. The Government have clearly effected an amusing U-turn on that matter.

Mr. John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unfortunate that, as he begins to address a series of important matters, the Secretary of State has left the Chamber? Does my hon. Friend think that the right hon. Gentleman has done so in something of a huff?

Mr. Davies: If the right hon. Gentleman has any human feelings —I am sure that he has —he must be feeling intensely embarrassed. As my hon. Friend knows,


when one feels intensely embarrassed and one has got oneself and one's party into a terrible mess, one tends to avoid other human company, particularly in places as public as the Chamber. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have all this arguing and shouting across the Floor of the Chamber.

Mr. Davies: We can all feel some sympathy for the Secretary of State's wish to hide his face at this juncture.

Kali Mountford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Davies: I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but the hon. Lady, who played such a charming part in our Committee proceedings, caught my eye first.

Kali Mountford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way —he is always courteous. Will he describe to the House the embarrassment that the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the shadow Secretary of State, must also be suffering?

Mr. Davies: I have no idea to what the hon. Lady is referring. No Conservative Member is suffering embarrassment about this afternoon's proceedings; far from it. There is no gloating, because this is an important matter and we have not succeeded in securing the necessary protection for the interests of disabled people, but our attitude is clearly far from being one of embarrassment. I will now give way to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) if he still wants to intervene.

Mr. Bennett: It seems odd that Conservative Members are making a fuss about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State leaving the Chamber when the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) did exactly the same. Obviously, he had decided that this is not a key issue.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman not only gives me the opportunity but almost obliges me to make a point that I did not intend to make because I do not want to add to the Secretary of State's discomfort at a difficult moment for him. However, in the light of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I must remind the House —we were all here and witnessed it —that my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) was here throughout the proceedings that lasted from Monday night until Tuesday morning. He may have left, as I did, for a few minutes at a time for particular reasons, but he was here for almost 14 hours, as many of us were. The Secretary of State managed four minutes in the Chamber, so embarrassed was he already at the growing storm created by his clumsy and insensitive handling of the matter.
I must return to the important issue of advice. Labour Members sprung up to try to intervene on my speech and divert me from my course because, as I said, the Government have performed a hilarious U-turn on the matter. I would be the last person to try to take advantage

of someone who had honestly changed their mind, provided they had the straightforwardness and honesty to say so and, if carrying out public responsibilities —as the Government self-evidently are —to explain to the House and the public why they have changed their mind. Instead, we have had a 180 deg U-turn on advice, with the Government pretending that it has not been a U-turn.
I shall read one or two quotations to make it absolutely plain how the Government's position on advice has changed so much. I shall start with the Green Paper, "A New Contract for Welfare: Partnership in Pensions", which the Government produced as recently as December 1998 —the document that we have had occasion to refer to in our proceedings several times, and which I do not doubt that we shall have to refer to again. On page 56, at paragraph 48, it says:
We intend to reduce, as far as possible, the need for individuals to seek financial advice when they consider joining a stakeholder pension scheme.
That was very plain, and it is clear that the Minister of State continued in that frame of mind for at least another few months because, on 30 January, he was quoted in The Daily Telegraph as saying:
we can enable more people to make a reasonable decision about joining a pension scheme without the need for detailed individual advice.
Once we got into Committee, I made it plain to the Minister that it was thoroughly irresponsible to think of people taking a decision on a matter as important as their pension without detailed individual financial advice. I also made it plain to him that the Government, by their ham-handedness and incompetence, had introduced into pensions a degree of gratuitous complexity, fragmentation and detail, which made it even more necessary for people to seek advice.
The Minister obviously took notice of those points, because he started subtly to nuance his position and then began to do a complete volte-face. For example, in Committee he said exactly the opposite of what he had told The Daily Telegraph only two months before. He said:
It is vital that people can seek financial advice when they consider joining a pension scheme and that they will receive good and accurate advice." —[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 9 March 1999; c. 113.]
I quite agree with him about that. By 27 April, his boss, the Secretary of State, whom I mentioned just now in a different context, said:
Certainly on something like a pension, which is more important than buying a house," —
he is right about that —
there has got to be some provision for advice".
Recently, the Minister of State gave a written answer to my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, in which he said:
Appropriate information and advice for those who need it will be an important part of the decision-making process for individuals considering a stakeholder pension scheme." —[Official Report,
10 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 53.]
Therefore it is absolutely plain that the Government have fundamentally changed their mind. I am glad that they have changed their mind, but I wish that they had had the straightforwardness, and perhaps the modesty —not a quality that has been pre-eminent in the present Government —to admit that they were wrong in the first place, and that they have come round.
I emphasise, as I did in Committee —causing the Government to change their mind —that it is now much more problematic than it ever has been for people on modest or small earnings to decide whether they should save for a pension at all. 1 have previously set out in the House, my calculation that one needs to save at least £80,000 in one's pension scheme before the annuity that one would get at the age of 60 will equal the minimum income guarantee that the Government have introduced for pensioners —which is means-tested —plus the other means-tested benefits: housing benefit, council tax relief and so on. If one did have —80,000, one would have an annuity exactly equal to what one would have got if one had never saved at all, and one would have lost —80,000 of consumption in the course of one's life. That means that one's family and oneself would have gone without a lot of things that everyone might have enjoyed.
The threshold is much higher than £80,000 and is growing all the time as it is bound to, not least because of the Government's foolish decision to promise that the minimum income guarantee will be indexed to earnings and will rise with them. The state retirement pension rises in line with prices. That is another thoroughly irresponsible decision and one which is deeply destructive of the principle of national insurance. The Government are basically saying that they will review and revalue a means-tested payment for which no one has contributed at a higher rate than payments for which people have contributed through the national insurance system.

Mr. Webb: I bring the hon. Gentleman back t) amendment No. 80, which he started to describe. I accept that it is desirable for advice to be available and that the giving of advice should be encouraged, but, as 1 read it, amendment No. 80 makes it compulsory to take advice. Is that his intention and should people be forced to take advice, even if they are well informed and do not need it?

Mr. Davies: Amendment No. 80 makes taking advice compulsory in the sense that, as at present, anyone who is selling a pension must make sure that the sale is appropriate, that the purchaser has received advice and that someone has taken a view on whether the pension is appropriate. People can simply walk into a life office and buy a pension, as long as the office is convinced that they have taken independent advice. However, it is up to those who are selling pensions to know their customers and to determine that what they are selling is appropriate. That is the basis of the rules applied by the financial regulators.

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting case, and I look forward to responding to it. Does he take the view that people joining occupational pension schemes should also take advice?

Mr. Davies: I take the view that trustees of occupational pension schemes must get it quite clear in their own minds, as part of their fiduciary responsibility to their pensioners, that the product that is being sold is appropriate. By definition, an employer-only contribution scheme is a good deal for the pensioner because it involves him receiving something that he would not otherwise receive. If an employee is also making

contributions, the trustees clearly have a fundamental duty to make sure that the scheme is a good deal for the pensioners involved.
There is protection, and we want to make sure that exactly the same kind of protection exists in stakeholder pension schemes. We want to make sure that that fundamental principle is safeguarded when employers provide a pension facility or when the pensions industry provides a pension, in the stakeholder context or in any other context.

Mrs. Browning: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies: Yes, but we have little time at our disposal. This is the last intervention that I will take.

Mrs. Browning: People on lower incomes, who the Government say are their targets for such pensions, could have earnings from more than one part-time job. Is not it crucial that they receive the right advice about their pension input?

Mr. Davies: It is indeed important that those people receive advice about pension input. Even if the earnings from their individual jobs are below the lower earnings limit, the sum of their earnings may be such that it would not make sense, in the light of this extension of means-testing, for them to make any provision for themselves at all. That position is sad and ironic —it is not one that we would have wanted to get into, but, unfortunately, it is one into which the Government are putting an ever-wider range of our citizens. That is the great problem —they still have not seen that one, even though they appear to have accepted the arguments about advice in principle.
I set out a number of other specific cases in our pensions debate last week. People obviously need complex, individual, targeted and tailored advice. For example, someone earning £9,000, who would be on the borderline for the proposed state second pension, would need advice on whether to stay in that scheme. People earning slightly more than £9,000 would also need advice on whether to stay with that scheme and on where the cut-off point comes. They would need advice on whether to join an occupational pension scheme or whether to take a personal or a stakeholder pension. These are complicated issues and the specifics of the individual must be taken into account. Generalised answers cannot be given. A young person expecting to change jobs or to become self-employed might well do much better to opt for a money purchase scheme rather than a final salary scheme, while someone expecting to stay for a long time might do better to opt for a final salary scheme.
6.15 pm
Higher up the income scale —the scale from, say, £9,000 to £20,000, £25,000 or £30,000, which has been targeted for the purpose of stakeholder pensions —complicated individual decisions must still be made. People must ask themselves whether they should take out a personal pension or a stakeholder pension. They may already have a personal pension with costs that are apparently higher —but those costs may have been paid at the outset. In terms of the marginal, or incremental, costs, a personal pension may be a much better option than a stakeholder pension.
All those decisions require professional advice —actuarial advice. It is monstrous of the Government to suggest, as they have in a number of recent statements, that it is satisfactory for people to be left to pay for that advice themselves. It is cruel and cynical to tell someone with an income of £9,000 a year to consult an actuary or accountant: the cost of such professional advice would almost certainly enter into the equation, and influence the decision about whether the person should save for a pension at all.
If the advice is not given, however, two things will happen. The person concerned may well be wasting his or her money —and it is particularly sad if someone with low earnings is led by the Government into wasting his or her hard-earned money. Moreover, employers who, if the Bill ever becomes law, may be forced to designate a pension scheme, and the pension companies that might provide the schemes, may be open to a charge of mis-selling unless the advice is provided.
Amendment No.80 proposes that, before a pension is sold, the employer must ensure that the person concerned has been properly advised. Employers may sometimes be able to discharge the responsibility themselves by ensuring that independent advice is available, but such a responsibility would impose an unreasonable burden and an unreasonable cost on smaller employers. Trade unions and similar bodies might be able to help, and we would welcome that; but we insist that advice should be given, and that the principle currently applying in the pensions market should apply in this instance.
The purpose of those rules in the pensions market is to prevent further mis-selling. As we all recognise, we had a bad mis-selling scandal in the 1980s, and I hope that we have learned some lessons from it. Until a couple of months ago, the Government did not appear to have learned any lessons, but they have learned one lesson now: they know that there will be terrible mis-selling —mis-selling on an unprecedented scale —unless the issue of advice is dealt with properly. They say that they now accept the need for advice, but they still have not told anyone how they will pay for it.
Let me now deal with amendment No.81, which concerns tax. One of the stupidest things that the Government have done has been to introduce, unnecessarily and gratuitously, a second tax regime for pensions —a second set of rules determining tax deductibility in the case of those who join stakeholder schemes. The Government say that those who join such schemes will be able to deduct £3,600 from their income by way of a tax credit, whereas the existing Inland Revenue sliding scale —involving a percentage of earnings increasing with age —will continue to apply to those who opt for personal pension schemes.
The Government are so incompetent that they do not seem to have taken into account what will result from the mere fact of having two different tax regimes. I shall say more shortly about the merits or otherwise of their proposed regimes, but the existence of two regimes in itself will increase the uncertainty and the complexity of the calculations that will need to be made, and will make it even more difficult for people to decide whether to opt for particular pension schemes.
I trust that the Minister has finally understood the point about advice. Perhaps he will now understand the point about tax. He is certainly not a foolish individual, and he

has a good business record himself. Perhaps his hands are tied — and his feet, and his mouth —by his bosses, or by the Treasury. In that case, I hope that he will be a bit more vigorous in persuading them to be more sensible.
Let us look at the case of someone who is considering going into a pension scheme and is thinking of a stakeholder or a personal pension. If his income is £20,000 or less, he has decided that he needs a funded individual pension and he never expects to earn more than that in real terms, no doubt, the £3,600 is totally adequate. However, he may hope to get promotion, a pay increase or bonuses for good performance. We want a society and economy where people have a chance to increase their earnings, particularly through higher performance. We want people to be able to use their bonuses to fund a pension, savings and so forth. At least I think we do; Conservative Members certainly do. In that case, clearly, he should not go into a scheme where the tax deductibility of pension contributions is limited to £3,600 a year. He might want to make contributions that will give him greater tax deductibility and tax relief on the Inland Revenue sliding scale. That would be a reason to take out not a stakeholder, but a personal pension.
The worse scenario would be to take out a stakeholder pension, to meet the costs of setting up that scheme and, a few years later, to have to close that, to move into a personal pension and to pay a whole lot of new transactional costs to set up a new scheme. That would not make any sense. Again, it is deplorable that the Government have not been able to work that one out themselves.
Amendment No. 83 deals with group personal pensions. [Interruption.] Someone took away my copy of the Green Paper. That took my breath away, at least for a moment or two. On group personal pensions, another wonderful U-turn is in process; at least I hope it is because the Government's initial proposals were deeply damaging.
Page 53, paragraph 29 of the Green Paper makes it plain —it could not be plainer in the English language:
Existing personal pensions will not therefore be able to describe themselves as stakeholder pension schemes.
Personal pensions will not be able to be passported into, in the modern jargon, the stakeholder system. People who have a personal pension of any type could not treat that as their stakeholder pension. Employers who had set up a group personal pension scheme could not treat that as the discharge of the obligation, which is placed on them in clause 3, to set up a stakeholder scheme.
That is extremely regrettable because it will mean that many good pension schemes, including group personal pensions, which invariably, in every example known to me, involve an employer contribution, will have to be wound down. Employers would then have to set up another stakeholder scheme, which does not require an employer contribution at all.
Therefore, if employers are feeling slightly less generous, or are simply exasperated by the Government forcing them to run down one good pension scheme for their employees and to set up another, they might take the opportunity either to reduce, or to eliminate their contribution altogether. That would be terrible for the employees concerned and a great blow to pensions.
That is thoughtlessness at best. At worst, it would have been a deliberate attempt to destroy at a stroke a valuable part of our pension structure, but I think that

 
the Government are guilty more of ignorance and incompetence than deliberate destructiveness. You will note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am capable of being very kind to the Government.

Mr. Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend is a generous man.

Mr. Davies: As my hon. Friend kindly says, I am a generous man. I hope that that characterisation is always justified by my conduct in the House and, indeed, elsewhere.
The U-turn, which is perhaps now taking place, has not been announced to the House. Such things are announced in the press or the media, but never to the House. On 28 April, the Secretary of State gave an interview to the Financial Times and said:
Some group personal pensions may be allowed to label themselves as stakeholder pensions. Alistair Darling, the Social Security Secretary has said. That could remove the need for employers to separate stakeholder pensions to their employees".
In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, the Minister of State said:
Group personal pensions will be able to register as stakeholder pension schemes provided they meet the required conditions for such schemes." —[Official Report, 10 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 53.]
That is an even stronger move sin the direction of allowing personal pensions to count as stakeholder pensions. That is a 180 deg contrast with the statement in the Green Paper.
We have tabled our amendments because of all the U-turns by the Government. There has been no explicit acknowledgement by the Government that they have got it wrong. I do not want to labour that because, if they are not big enough to admit that they occasionally make mistakes, that is too bad for them. They should at least come to the House to make these announcements plainly and unambiguously because they are creating great uncertainty outside.
People in the pensions industry look at the Green Paper, which they are entitled to believe represents Government policy until it is changed, and they then see newspaper articles and remarks attributed to Ministers, and they do not know where they are. It is contributing to an unfortunate crisis which is paralysing our pensions market. Employers and pension funds are frightened to move forward and sell stakeholder pensions because of the danger of mis-selling, to which I have already referred, and the absence of any assurance that there will be independent advice. They do not know what the rules of the scheme will be because they do not know what the Government mean with their confusing proposals such as stakeholders, LISAs —lifelong individual savings accounts —and so on. Also, individuals are rightly and reasonably confused and hesitate to make decisions in the absence of advice.
We are tabling our amendment to remove the uncertainty, at least in relation to group personal pensions, to give companies the confidence to continue with these schemes and, I hope, to encourage companies who do not have existing provisions for their employees to start them.

The amendment would make the regime clear within the Bill. If we achieve some clarity after six months of debate that will be an achievement of some kind.
I described new clause 13 as a summation of our views on stakeholder pensions. It incorporates many of the lessons learned from the Government's extraordinarily shambolic treatment of the matter over the past few months. We do not start on a completely blank sheet of paper, nor should we. However regrettable and unfortunate it may be for many people from the pensions industry right through to the disabled, the Labour Government are in power. They have a democratic mandate and have produced a Bill to set up a stakeholder pension system. We are looking positively to see whether there is something that we can save from the wreck or on which we can build a constructive and worthwhile structure. We are perfectly happy with the idea of employer obligations to set up a payroll deduction facility.
In the pensions debate last week, the Government asked my hon. Friends and myself, perfectly reasonably, about the Conservative party's policy on pensions. They now have it in black and white in new clause 13 and I hope that they will accept it. It is a stakeholder pension scheme based on the employer obligation to provide a free payroll deduction facility for payments into any approved pension vehicle.
6.30 pm
Hon. Members should note that the new clause would oblige employers to establish a specific payment facility on a payroll-deduction basis, as they currently administer the pay-as-you-earn and national insurance systems. It would not replicate the obligation, imposed in clause 3 of the Bill, on employers to designate a scheme. As I said, that would be an unreasonably onerous task to impose on small employers —or on any employer. I do not believe that it is an employer's function to take charge of his or her employee's private life or financial affairs.
We therefore do not propose designation, but simply to establish the facility, which will be available for payment into any approved pension scheme — as defined by the Inland Revenue under chapter 14 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 and by the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority.
In our new clause, we get away entirely from fragmentation. We are not saying, for example, that people may pay only into schemes established on the basis of trust law. We should be equally happy with personal and other pensions that are set up on a deed-poll basis. The facility could be used to invest in a personal pension; a stakeholder pension, as the Government are suggesting; or in a lifetime individual savings account —the rival Treasury product —which we think has considerable merit and attraction.

Mr. Webb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: I cannot give way now, as I am trying to bring my remarks to a close. I have already taken a number of interventions, including one from the hon. Gentleman, as he will remember.
The essence of our proposal is that it would avoid all gratuitous fragmentation and include a unified tax regime. The regime would be unified in that employees benefiting


from the facility would be able to take an annual deduction of £5,000— we are a little more generous than the Government, and choose a round figure— without any questions being asked about how it might relate to his or her income or, if he or she prefers, to apply the current Inland Revenue sliding scale of income percentage rising with age.
Clearly, employees will choose whatever suits them best in any one year, and there will be no difficulty about employees whose circumstance might change in future, when they will be able to make higher contributions. We want them to be able to do that, and therefore to receive the corresponding tax deductions. However, to achieve that goal, we shall have to avoid the creation of unnecessary barriers and fragmentation.
In a few words, we are offering a single, unified and coherent structure that really will advance the cause of United Kingdom pensions — to which we have been, and always will be, most sincerely committed.

Mr. Flight: I should like to stress two specific points, on the necessity of advice. The first point—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) alludedc—is that 8 million people currently have personal pension schemes and have already paid for the up-front marketing costs, whatever those might have been. As Ministers will know— with the introduction of the Green Paper and the great white hope of the new stakeholder schemes — the number of people dropping out of personal pension schemes is increasing substantially, probably very much to their detriment. It is, therefore, crucial that people should receive very clear quantitative advice when deciding whether to participate in a new stakeholder scheme or to remain in their current pension scheme.
The second point has not yet been made in the debate. There is a very high probability that — because of the CAT-marking arrangements to keep charges low — most stakeholder schemes offered by companies will invest in index trackers. Although I do not want to get into a debate on the merits of active versus index tracker management, individuals will have to make the important decision on which they should opt for.
The pension assets in index tracker schemes will go up and down with markets. Those with a personal pension scheme usually have a choice of different funds to invest in, and can make their scheme more or less cautious and change according to circumstances. It is important that people should know and get advice when choosing between their existing personal scheme and the new stakeholder. They should know the significance of the likely index tracker investment versus active investment management.
As I understand it, the tax deductible sum for stakeholder schemes is not a simple £ 3,600 per annum, but the lesser of that figure or 100 per cent. of salary. I do not understand the reason for the second part of the formula. Working out which is the lesser and keeping records of people's salaries to no apparent end will be a waste of time and money, resulting in unnecessary extra charges for stakeholders. I support our proposal for a tax regime that would be the same for all pension schemes

irrespective of their category. The stakeholder proposals simply add costs. Those are some specific points on the two key areas that we are advancing.

Mr. Webb: The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) mentioned four issues: advice, tax relief, the treatment of group personal pensions and access through employers to all pension schemes. Perhaps it will be helpful if I address those four points in the sequence in which he raised them.
We all agree that pensions are complicated and it is important that people are well informed when they make choices. To that extent, I have common ground with the hon. Gentleman. All the quotes that he read out were about the importance of access to good advice — I have no problem with that — but the substance of his proposals, as I think that he more or less accepted, is that people should be compelled to take advice. Amendment No. 80 says that the employer should ask the person running the stakeholder scheme to issue a certificate saying that he will not let any employees into the scheme unless they prove that they have taken independent advice.

Mr. Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman should not misrepresent my words to imply that we suggest that the law should place a charge on people to seek advice regardless of whether they want a pension. We are simply saying that when a pension is sold, the responsibility must lie with the seller — or the employer if they are designating or sponsoring the scheme — to make sure that the individual concerned has been properly advised before taking out the pension. Without that provision, there would be a recipe for the most appalling mis-selling. That would be particularly cruel for people on lower incomes, whom we are most concerned about.

Mr. Webb: That may be the hon. Gentleman's intention, but it is not the effect of his amendments. Amendment No. 80 says that an employee will not be admitted to the stakeholder scheme that the employer is associated with unless the scheme provider can prove that independent advice has been taken by each person who goes into the scheme. That is appropriate for some people, but for others who are well informed and for whom the stakeholder scheme provided by the employer is self-evidently the right scheme, particularly if there is an employer contribution, there is no reason for a legal obligation. It seems a very un-Conservative proposal— although that is not a reason for opposing it — to require even the well informed to take advice. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, but amendment No. 80 clearly does not do that.
The same is true of amendment No. 81 about tax relief. The amendment raises two issues. The first is whether the £ 3,600 figure is high enough. I have some interest in the hon. Gentleman's point that it may not be. However, the amendment goes on to propose not a simple £ 5,000, but £ 5,000 or the amount allowed under the age-related rebate scheme
provided that the employee shall be given the right to choose".
The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to simplify the tax regime, but that he wanted people to choose which tax regime they preferred. The tax regime for stakeholder


schemes will be different from that for occupational schemes, which appear not to be covered by the amendment.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is having great difficulty in understanding something very simple. If the employee chooses, there is no fragmentation of the market from the employee's point of view. It does not matter which tax regime he chooses this year, because he can choose another next year if that is more appropriate to his circumstances. Therefore, we are reducing the complexity of choice and the danger of a mis-choice or a mis-sell.

Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is introducing a new choice. If I take out a pension at the moment, I have no choice about the tax regime that applies to my contributions. The amendment introduces a choice of whether I want the lump sum cap on my contributions to get tax relief or some percentage of my salary. That seems to create greater complexity.
My colleagues and I would like a single annual amount, allowable against tax, for all sorts of pension savings — not choices between different schemes. I fear that that would introduce new complexity, contrary to what is intended.
On group personal pensions, the issues are more difficult. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford and his party want to allow group personal pensions to be eligible for stakeholder status. Amendment No. 83 says:
Approved Group Personal Pensions shall be deemed to be stakeholder pensions for the purposes of this Part.
It does not say, "some shall, provided they satisfy the standards of stakeholder schemes." One wonders what the point of the first 40-odd clauses of the Bill is if an existing form of pension provision will automatically come under the new category.
Clearly, some existing group personal pensions may or may not be good value for money for their members, and the charging structure may be unfavourable to those who are likely to leave early, for example. Simply to say that they will come under the stakeholder scheme and get all the associated advantages is rather difficult. If the amendment were more extensive, and said that they can count as stakeholder schemes if they meet the relevant criteria, we might have had more sympathy. However, as it stands, I am afraid that we do not.
The first time I saw new clause 13 I thought that it was eminently sensible. However, when the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford explained it, 1 went off the idea. I wanted some clarification from the hon. Gentleman during his speech, and perhaps he will intervene on me in a moment to explain the point — briefly, I hope.
Under new clause 13, an employer with 3,000 employees would be obliged to provide free of charge a facility to every employee to deduct at source a pension contribution, and to pay that contribution to the pension scheme of the employee's choosing. The Government are proposing one scheme — that the employer would provide access to one stakeholder scheme. It is reasonable to suppose that the employer would then take all the contributions in one go and pass them in one envelope, metaphorically, to the scheme.
As I understand it, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford is saying that the employer, at his own cost, will have to pay contributions to every different scheme of which any individual employee is a member. Clearly, individual employees can be members of dozens of different schemes — particularly if there is no company scheme. At a medium-sized firm with no company scheme, individuals could be members of dozens of different pensions schemes.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman ought to know that employers already must have the software set up to enable them to make such payments under earnings attachment orders and so forth, and these may go in different directions. That is not the great burden — of costs on an employer. The great burden — which our amendment avoids, but the Government's formulation unfortunately involves employers in — is the burden of designating the right scheme. That is an enormous responsibility, and involves spending money on actuaries and advisers, and receiving bids from different pension groups, and then on making a choice between them. That is what we want to avoid. It is an unreasonable burden on the employer, and a dangerous situation in which an employer can find himself.

Mr. Webb: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not feel that that is what his amendment is about or would achieve.

Mrs. Browning: Is not it the case that members of staff of Members of Parliament have, at present, a scheme through the Fees Office where they elect to go into a personal pension with a variety of companies, and on which they are responsible for taking financial advice about whether the scheme to which they are signing up is in their best interests? Surely in terms of administration on the employer — in this case, the Fees Office of the House of Commons — that is complex, when one thinks that there are 650 Members of Parliament. However, it does it. Surely it would simply be a matter of putting the money into a stakeholder scheme rather than into a personal pension as at present. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's argument about the complexity of administration.

Mr. Webb: That is an interesting parallel and I accept that each hon. Member could have one or more employees, each choosing a different personal pension, which could place a considerable administrative burden on the Fees Office.

Mrs. Browning: That happens now.

Mr. Webb: Indeed, but is it a considerable administrative burden? I suspect that it may well be. Do we know how many people the Fees Office employs to administer those payments? Some Conservative Members here today served with me in Committee on the Tax Credits Bill, where we argued against the burden on business of employers having to pass on tax credits. Under the new clause, employers would have to pass on not only one payment from the Inland Revenue to their employees;


they might have to make dozens of payments to dozens of different companies. I accept that there is a parallel, but we do not how much work is created or what it costs.

Mr. Flight: Surely all that is required is for the employer to give a list of instructions to his bank to make regular standing order payments to the various banks of the recipients' pension schemes. Once that was done, there would be no more work involved. That is what the Fees Office does.

Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman wants to have it both ways. He and I have both attacked the working families tax credit, which is a single payment from the Inland Revenue through the employer to the employee, regarding it as a burden on business. We are now talking about a system that involves as many employees as there are in the firm and as many pension companies as there are in the land. Contrary to what he said, the payments need not be the same every month: people might want to increase their payments following a pay rise or to contribute a lump sum.
We have to form a judgment about the burden placed on business. Intriguingly, Conservative Members do not think that there will be a burden; strangely, I think that there will. We certainly want to facilitate access to pension saving. The Government have got it right in using the mechanism of employers — there are many fewer employers than employees — to deliver to a specified scheme. In my judgment, that is much less of a burden.

Mr. Brazier: I served in Committee on the Bill, and we are nearing the end of a process that has gone on for two and a half months. Following the emotionally charged and important debate on incapacity benefit, we can see once again how wrong it was to cram so many different subjects into one Bill, as hon. Members of various parties said on Second Reading. The new clause and the amendments grouped with it are very important, dealing with pension arrangements for people who can only just afford to provide for themselves, but we have a small turnout because this discussion follows a mass of other important subjects.
We are suffering once again from the fact that, because the Government are trying to cram a gallon into a pint pot, there is far too much reliance on regulation. We are trying to pin down what should be done, but much is unclear because of the excessive use of regulation. The regulations and the ideas behind them stem from several different consultations, including the consultation on this part of the Bill, which was not even completed when we began our proceedings in Committee.
In other parts of the Bill, Labour party manifesto commitments — on means-testing and on the contributory principle, for example — were abandoned. The Government's refusal to accept the new clause and associated amendments represents the abandonment of another good principle: that we should seek to simplify the social security and pensions system. Absurdly, with the stakeholder plan, the Government are trying to start again with a completely new edifice which is separate from the Treasury's edifice. That is not completely new, but builds on existing plans, and for that reason, it is mostly welcomed by the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) missed the point of the interventions by my hon. Friends. The point about the working families tax credit, on which we

stood shoulder to shoulder with the Liberal Democrats, is that it is potentially adjustable twice a year on the basis of a complicated calculation. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) pointed out, the arrangements suggested in new clause 13 would be in place for good once a simple standing order had been set up. In the case of the House of Commons scheme, it would be pegged to 10 per cent. of salary. The arrangements would not involve the complexities to which we objected in another context.
By trying to set up such a complicated system, which contained the germ of a good idea when the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) first proposed it, the Government are setting themselves against the pensions industry and against those who would like to provide better for those at the bottom end of the earnings scale, who will be specifically targeted by the measure. I suspect that the rival Treasury product will be much more successful.
My final point is really a Third Reading point, but I hope that you will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it looks unlikely that we will get to Third Reading. It is very sad that we should be debating all these amendments at the end of proceedings on this Bill. We are dancing round on the head of a pin while the entire debate on pensions policy is crushed between two halves of a nutcracker — one being the devastating blow that was wreaked upon ordinary company, personal and other pensions by the shameful removal of tax credits, and the other being the knowledge that among the low paid, people who do not provide for themselves may end up doing better. That point was eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). I strongly support new clause 13 which would go a long way towards improving a rotten, muddled and confused scheme.

Miss McIntosh: I strongly associate myself with new clause 13, which was eloquently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). I wish to address two situations. The first is where an employer already operates an occupational pension scheme. Some employers may be tempted to close their occupational pension scheme to new entrants and simply offer access to stakeholder schemes. Small and large employers alike believe that that would be a regrettable move and I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will address that point.
The second situation is where an employer does not already operate an occupational pension scheme. Most employers without such a scheme would admit that they lack the financial skills necessary to choose such a scheme. If they choose the wrong scheme, many fear adverse consequences for themselves and their employees. I hope that the Minister supports the suggestion that employers should be required to provide access only via a pensions clearing house.

Mrs. May: For the record, I should declare that I have placed in the Register of Members' Interests a non-registerable shareholding in the Prudential corporation.
Before I make a couple of points about the amendments and the stakeholder scheme, I want to pick up on the comments of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). I am sorry that I was inadvertently out of the Chamber when


he began to speak, but I came in as he was taking interventions on the extent to which proposals for employee payroll deduction facilities in new clause 13 would be a burden on business and difficult to operate.
As a former employee of the Association for Payment Clearing Services, I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman thinks that providing that sort of facility is beyond the scope of the banking sector, he should take a trip to the former de Havilland aircraft site at Edgware to visit BACS — formerly the Bankers Automated Clearing Services company — and see the number of deductions and payments that pass through the system every day. The banking sector is well able to cope with the proposal contained in new clause 13.

Mr. Webb: I have absolutely no doubt that the banking sector can cope. My question was what would be the cost to employers of accessing the services.

Mr. Brazier: Will my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. It is not possible for the hon. Gentleman to intervene on an intervention.

Mrs. May: I assume that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) wanted to intervene before I answered the intervention. I am happy to give way to him.

Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being as courteous as ever. The point that I tried to make earlier to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) perhaps needs to be reiterated. The cost and complexity arises not from making a payment, but from having to do the calculation every six months for people whose earnings vary from week to week.

Mrs. May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying the point that he made earlier. My point is that the banking sector can cope. Businesses produce tapes or telecoms data for banks to put to BACS. Significant numbers of such payments are being made, and if the hon. Member for Northavon is suggesting that new clause 13 should be cast aside on such a technical point, he should visit BACS to see how companies input such information and deal with such payments.
I have two points to make about stakeholders which relate to amendment No. 80. I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), and by pension providers and bodies that represent employers. The Government's stakeholder pension schemes may result in the closure of some occupational pension schemes to new members. Employers will tell employees that they are not carrying on with occupational pension scheme provision, providing instead for the stakeholder pension because that is what the Government say is good.
The way in which we have built up our occupational pension scheme funds is one of the jewels in this country's crown. It places us in a far better position than many other countries to deal with future pension provision. We should not attack that position. I accept that the Government do not

intend to attack occupational pension schemes, but I fear that the law of unintended consequences could very well bring about that result.
Finally, I want to reiterate a point that I made in the Chamber last week on pensions. I am particularly concerned about the impact of the Government's proposals on women. Women are just getting a foot on the ladder of occupational pension schemes, and some schemes may be taken from them. Secondly, many women are concerned already that they do not receive adequate advice about pension proposals. If no advice is provided on stakeholder pension schemes, many women will be disadvantaged in future. I support amendment No. 80 because independent pensions advice is important for all employees, but particularly for women.

7 pm

Mrs. Browning: I contribute to this section of the debate with some sadness. Although I was not a member of the Standing Committee, I followed the Hansard record of those deliberations. On the one hand, I must welcome the fact that the new Labour Government have undergone a conversion in respect of personal pensions and pension input per se. Many of us remember how, in the 1980s, every time the Conservatives introduced a Budget to give tax breaks to individuals to encourage them to input into pensions, whether personal or corporate, the Labour party consistently voted against those provisions, which have made Britain one of the strongest countries in Europe for pension funds and provision for old age. Notwithstanding that, the Labour party said time after time before the Labour Government were elected that if it came to office it would make fundamental changes to increase the scope of pension provision for a wider range of individuals and to tighten up aspects where it felt there needed to be more security for the person investing in a pension.
The Committee deliberated and we waited a long while to get proper confirmation from the Government about what they were proposing. Even though we now have a Bill in front of us, the Government still seem unable to answer many questions. I will raise some different issues from those raised by my hon. Friends, and perhaps we will hear one or two answers from the Government.
Given some of the problems, such as pensions mis-selling and the Maxwell scandal, many people may well be concerned about being a part of a group pension of whatever denomination. The Government therefore said that they want to enhance the role of trustees. That is important. However, as the Bill has proceeded, the Government have not been clear about their intentions for trustees.
The Minister of State was adamant in Committee, saying:
We want member-nominated trustees to be appointed to the board of stakeholder pension schemes."— [Official Report, Standing Committee D, 4 March 1999; c. 52
Despite persistent questioning by my Conservative colleagues, the Government failed to explain who will be the trustees and how they will be chosen. That question seems fundamental. If the Government's new stakeholder pensions are to be widely welcomed and, more important, taken up — particularly if they are to receive the support of employers in the workplace — it is extremely important for that sort of detail to be available.


It is not the sort of detail that should be left to secondary legislation. if we have learned one thing in the past two years it is that many major Bills have been ill thought out — almost cobbled together on the hoof as they progress through Committee. Later, when we are faced with statutory instruments and secondary legislation that put the detail into the Bill, we find that the Government are doing something quite different from what they said in Committee.
I tell the Government and the Minister, who was adamant about trustees in stakeholder pensions, that if they want those pensions to be successful, they should tonight give the House the details of how those trustees will be appointed and take their place on the board.

Mr. Timms: The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) demonstrated again this evening his remarkable ability to make material that is worth five minutes last for 35. The House will have enjoyed that, although why it was necessary for him to do it on this occasion, I am not sure.
Stakeholder pension schemes are at the heart of our plans to modernise the pension system. They will provide — for many people for the first time — affordable funded pensions so that they can look forward to a secure income in retirement. There has been wide support for their introduction from those who responded to the Green Paper and others, both for the aims of the policy and for the structure that we have put in place to achieve them. We are working closely with the industry to ensure their success.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) asked about trustees. The Bill provides for stakeholder pensions to be run in a way that puts members' interests first. Trust-based schemes run by a board of trustees will do exactly that. We will consult between now and the summer on the details of how the trustee arrangements will work. If I understood her correctly, she supports the involvement of trustees in the schemes. I agree, but, as I said in Committee, we want to retain flexibility. That is why we have not ruled out possible alternative governance structures if they can deliver comparable protection.
In the Labour party manifesto, we promised to introduce a framework for stakeholder pensions to meet the needs of those who could not join a good-value second pension. We said that schemes would be approved to receive people's savings only if they met high standards and provided value for money, flexibility and security. The framework in the Bill fulfils that commitment. Contrary to what Conservative Members said, there have been no U-turns. Our position on group personal pensions is the one set out in the Green Paper; we asked for views on it on page 59. We are listening to those views and will reach a conclusion on that basis. That is what we always said that we would do, and we will do it.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: My hon. Friend knows that I want to raise the issue of Christian conscience. He is aware that many Christians cannot take up pension plans under existing or proposed legislation. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken the matter up with the Treasury. Can he reassure me that any regulations under the Bill will take account of Christian conscience regarding the appropriate pension offered,

contributions to a scheme and the rights of employees to refuse on Christian conscience grounds any scheme offered?

Mr. Timms: I am well aware of those issues. My hon. Friend put one of his constituents in touch with me. A group from the Plymouth Brethren came to discuss those points with me. Nothing in the Bill or any of our proposals would require employers to contribute to pension schemes on behalf of their employees. We are consulting on the possibility of making it a condition of employment that people should join their occupational scheme, if there is one. That would need to be subject to opt-out arrangements. We will carefully consider my hon. Friend's point in deciding them. I think that the people who have been in touch with him and me will feel generally content about our way forward on this.

Mr. Leigh: I am sorry to labour the point, but the Plymouth Brethren are a tiny group. No one in the House supports their views, which is all the more reason why we should be careful to ensure that their conscience is protected. They cannot join any existing pension scheme, except the basic state pension, because of their religious belief. The Minister must reassure them that they will not be forced into a stakeholder pension against their conscience.

Mr. Timms: I can categorically assure the hon. Gentleman that no one will be forced into a stakeholder pension if they do not wish to join one. The Plymouth Brethren are not that small a group. I much enjoyed the meeting that took place on the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie).
Let me briefly deal with some of the points raised in the debate. New clause 13 would compel employers to offer payroll deduction facilities for almost all pension arrangements. Conservative Members appear to believe that that would provide an adequate replacement for stakeholder pensions. In reality, providing access to other sorts of scheme would not be a substitute for the benefits that we expect for members from stakeholder pension schemes. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) is right to say that the proposals would place a substantial, additional burden on business. Businesses would have to send out regular payments to an unlimited number of pension schemes — depending on how many people work in the organisation. That is not sensible.
The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) made a much more interesting suggestion. I commend her for raising the point because it seems to have eluded her hon. Friends.
There is a possibility of making a clearing-house arrangement under which employers would make a single payment to a clearing house. The clearing house would then sort out which company the payments should be passed on to. That proposal is favoured by the Confederation of British Industry, for example. It is one of the possibilities on which we shall consult between now and the summer.
Amendment No. 83 would enable existing group personal pensions to qualify as stakeholder pension schemes. Again, we have been absolutely consistent on that point. We do not want to undermine good-value existing provision, but personal pensions do not have many of the features that will make stakeholder pension schemes a good deal for their members.
Stakeholder pension schemes will provide a better-value, more flexible alternative for many of those who cannot join an occupational scheme. The proposed governance structure is an important part of that; we are determined that stakeholder schemes will be run in their members' interests. It is here that personal pension schemes often fall short of the high standards that we want for stakeholder pension schemes. We are keen not to discourage high-quality provision and will be consulting further on our specific proposals as to how we could best incorporate into the new regime arrangements that meet our high standards and offer good-quality provision.
Amendment No. 80 deals with advice. It is right that people considering joining any pension scheme should have access to good, accurate financial information and advice. We have said that throughout, and our commitment to that should not be in doubt. Since we came to office, one of our priorities has been to ensure that pension companies and advisers clear up the mis-selling scandal that we inherited from the previous Government. The arrangements instituted by the Conservative Government created an enormous number of problems — not least by, wrongly, inducing many people to leave good occupational schemes of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and to enter personal schemes that were much less advantageous.
The amendment would require stakeholder pension schemes to certify that all applicants who want to join their employer's designated scheme have received independent financial advice. That goes much too far. Individual advice has a cost. In many cases, that cost is worth paying, but, given the right information, many potential members will be perfectly capable of making an appropriate choice for themselves.
We expect that significant numbers of those joining stakeholder schemes will do so through their employers. To require all those applicants to receive independent advice would impose excessive costs on schemes if they had to meet the costs of its provision — as they will in many cases.
Amendment No. 81 would require a higher limit on contributions to stakeholder pension schemes than the £ 3,600 that we proposed, and proposes that, as an alternative, the limit could be set by reference to the relevant personal pension limit. Our proposal is intended to provide a simple, clear system. I can assure hon. Members that contribution limits are one of the aspects of the schemes on which we shall be carrying out further detailed consultation between now and the summer, in the light of the representations that we have received to date. Following that consultation, all aspects of the tax regime — including the maximum level of contributions — will, as is normal, be set out in a Finance Bill or tax regulations as appropriate, but they will not be included in this Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

It being six hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time: —

The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 420.

Division No. 193]
[7.29 pm



AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Coaker, Vernon


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Ainger, Nick
Cohen, Harry


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coleman, lain


Alexander, Douglas
Colman, Tony


Allen, Graham
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Corston, Ms Jean


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cousins, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Cox, Tom


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cranston, Ross


Atkins, Charlotte
Crausby, David


Austin, John
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Banks, Tony
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Barnes, Harry
Cummings, John


Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Battle, John



Bayley, Hugh
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Beard, Nigel
Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Begg, Miss Anne
Darvill, Keith


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davidson, Ian


Bennett, Andrew F
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
 

Benton, Joe
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bermingham, Gerald
Dawson, Hilton


Berry, Roger
Dean, Mrs Janet


Best, Harold
Denham, John


Blackman, Liz
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Dismore, Andrew


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Blizzard, Bob
Donohoe, Brian H


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Doran, Frank


Boateng, Paul
Dowd, Jim

Borrow, David
Drew, David


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Drown, Ms Julia


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bradshaw, Ben
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Edwards, Huw


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Efford, Clive



Ellman, Mrs Louise


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Ennis, Jeff


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Etherington, Bill


Browne, Desmond
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Buck, Ms Karen
Fisher. Mark


Burden, Richard
Fitzpatrick, Jim 


Burgon, Colin
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Butler, Mrs Christine
Flint, Caroline


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Flynn, Paul


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Follett, Barbara


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foulkes, George


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Fyfe, Maria


Cann, Jamie
Galbraith, Sam


Caplin, Ivor
Gapes, Mike


Casale, Roger
Gardiner, Barry


Caton, Martin
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Cawsey, Ian
Gerrard, Neil


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Chaytor, David
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Church, Ms Judith
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clapham, Michael
Godsiff, Roger


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Goggins, Paul


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen



Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)



Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Gunnell, John


Clelland, David
Hain, Peter


Clwyd, Ann
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)






Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McAvoy, Thomas


Hanson, David
McCabe, Steve


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia



Healey, John
McDonagh, Siobhain


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Macdonald, Calum


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McDonnell, John


Hepburn, Stephen
McFall, John


Heppell, John
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hesford, Stephen
 McIsaac, Shona


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hill, Keith
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hinchliffe, David
McLeish, Henry


Hodge, Ms Margaret
McNamara, Kevin


Hoey, Kate
McNulty, Tony


Home Robertson, John
MacShane, Denis


Hood, Jimmy
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hoon, Geoffrey
McWalter, Tony


Hope, Phil
Mallaber, Judy


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Howells, Dr Kim
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Martlew, Eric


Humble, Mrs Joan
Maxton, John


Hurst, Alan
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hutton, John
Meale, Alan


Iddon, Dr Brian
Merron, Gillian


Illsley, Eric
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Miller, Andrew


Jamieson, David
Moffatt, Laura


Jenkins, Brian
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)



Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Morley, Elliot


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Mountford, Kali


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie



Mudie, George


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Mullin, Chris


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Keeble, Ms Sally
Norris, Dan


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
O'Hara, Eddie


Kemp, Fraser
Olner, Bill


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
O'Neill, Martin


Khabra, Piara S
Organ, Mrs Diana


Kidney, David
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Kilfoyle, Peter
Palmer, Dr Nick


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Pearson, Ian


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Pendry, Tom


Kingham, Ms Tess
Perham, Ms Linda


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Pickthall, Colin


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Pike, Peter L


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Plaskitt, James


Laxton, Bob
Pollard, Kerry


Lepper, David
Pond, Chris


Leslie, Christopher
Pope, Greg


Levitt, Tom
Powell, Sir Raymond


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Primarolo, Dawn


Linton, Martin
Prosser, Gwyn


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Purchase, Ken


Lock, David
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Love, Andrew
Quinn, Lawrie


McAllion, John
Radice, Giles





Rammell, Bill
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Rapson, Syd
Stringer, Graham



Raynsford, Nick
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)




Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Temple—Morris, Peter


Rooker, Jeff
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Rooney, Terry
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Timms, Stephen


Rowlands, Ted
Tipping, Paddy


Roy, Frank
Todd, Mark


Ruane, Chris
Touhig, Don


Ruddock, Joan
Trickett, Jon


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Truswell, Paul


Ryan, Ms Joan
Turner, Dennis, (Wolverh'ton SE)


Salter, Martin
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Savidge, Malcolm
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sawford, Phil
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sedgemore, Brian
Vaz, Keith


Shaw, Jonathan
Vis, Dr Rudi


Sheerman, Barry
Walley, Ms Joan


Shipley, Ms Debra
Ward, Ms Claire


Singh, Marsha
Watts, David


Skinner, Dennis
White, Brian


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)




Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wills, Michael


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wilson, Brian


Soley, Clive
Winnick, David


Southworth, Ms Helen
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)



Spellar, John
Wise, Audrey


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wood, Mike


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Woolas, Phil


Steinberg, Gerry
Worthington, Tony



Stevenson, George
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wyatt, Derek



Stoate, Dr Howard
Teller for the Ayes:


Stott, Roger
Mr. Mike Hall and


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Mr. Clive Betts.





NOES


Amess, David
(NE Fife)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Cash, William


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
(Chipping Barnet)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Chidgey, David


Beggs, Roy
Chope, Chirstopher


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clappison, James


Bercow, John
Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey


Beresford, Sir Paul
Colvin, Michael


Blunt, Crispin
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Body, Sir Richard
Cotter, Brian


Boswell, Tim
Cran, James


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brake, Tom
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Brand, Dr Peter
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)


Brazier, Julian



Breed, Colin
Day, Stephen


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Duncan, Alan


Browning, Mrs Angela
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Burnett, John
Evans, Nigel


Burns, Simon
Faber, David


Butterfill, John
Fabricant, Michael


Cable, Dr Vincent
Fallon, Michael


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
Fearn, Ronnie






Flight, Howard
Oaten, Mark


Forsythe, Clifford
Öpik, Lembit


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ottaway, Richard


Foster, Don (Bath)
Page, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Paice, James


Gale, Roger
Paterson, Owen


Garnier, Edward
Pickles, Eric


Gibb, Nick
Prior, David


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Randall, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gray, James
Rendel, David


Green, Damian
Robathan, Andrew


Grieve, Dominic
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Hammond, Philip
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Harvey, Nick
Ruffley, David


Hawkins, Nick
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Sanders, Adrian


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Sayeed, Jonathan


Horam, John
Shepherd, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hunter, Andrew
Soames, Nicholas


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Spicer, Sir Michael


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Stunell, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard
Swayne, Desmond


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Syms, Robert


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Key, Robert
Taylor, Sir Teddy


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Thompson, William


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Kirkwood, Archy
Tredinnick, David


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Trend, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Tyler, Paul


Lansley, Andrew
Tyrie, Andrew


Leigh, Edward
Viggers, Peter


Letwin, Oliver
Walter, Robert


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Wardle, Charles


Lidington, David
Waterson, Nigel



Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Webb, Steve


Livsey, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Welsh, Andrew


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Whitney, Sir Raymond


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Willis, Phil


McLoughlin, Patrick
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Woodward, Shaun


May, Mrs Theresa
Yeo, Tim


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Moss, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:



Norman, Archie
Mr. Tim Collins and



Mr. Oliver Heald.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That the remaining Government amendments be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 381, Nose 153.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2

REGISTRATION OF STAKEHOLDER PENSION SCHEMES

Amendments made: No. 42, in page 2, line 41, leave out from 'of to 'if' in line 42 and insert

'a pension scheme which is or has been registered under this section, and section 10 of that Act applies to any person prescribed in relation to such a scheme,'.

No. 43, in page 2, line 44, after 'scheme' insert

'or (as the case may be) while the scheme was so registered he failed to take all such steps as were reasonable to secure that each of those conditions was so fulfilled'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Clause 9

MONITORING OF EMPLOYERS' PAYMENTS TO PERSONAL PENSION SCHEMES

Amendment made: No. 44, in page 7, line 34, at end insert—

'() If—

(a) subsection (6) or (7) is not complied with, and
(b) the scheme—

(i) is established under a trust, and
(ii) is or has been registered under section 2 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (stakeholder schemes),


section 3 of the Pensions Act 1995 (power of the Regulatory Authority to remove trustees) applies to any trustee of the scheme who has failed to take all such steps as are reasonable to secure compliance.'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Clause 10

LATE PAYMENTS BY EMPLOYERS TO OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 10, line 36, at end insert—

'() If in any case subsection (9)(b) is not complied with— 

(a) section 3 applies to any trustee who has failed to take all such steps as are reasonable to secure compliance; and
(b) section 10 applies to any trustee or manager who has failed to take all such steps.'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Clause 11

EFFECT OF PERSON'S INSOLVENCY ON HIS PENSION RIGHTS

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 12, line 25, leave out

'in good faith by the trustees or managers of the scheme in question before'

and insert

by the trustees or managers of the scheme in question—

(a) in good faith, and
(b) without notice of'.

No. 53, in page 12, line 44, at end insert—

'(12) For the purposes of this section a person shall be treated as having a right under an approved pension arrangement where—

(a) he is entitled to a credit under section 23(1)(b) as against the person responsible for the arrangement (within the meaning of Chapter I of Part IV), and
(b) the person so responsible has not discharged his liability in respect of the credit:.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Clause 12

EFFECT OF INSOLVENCY ON UNAPPROVED PENSION RIGHTS

Amendments made: No. 54, in page 12, line 46, leave out

'rights of a person under unapproved pension arrangements'

and insert

'or in connection with enabling rights of a person under an unapproved pension arrangement'.

No. 55, in page 13, line 1, leave out from 'under' to `future' in line 4 and insert

'this section may, in particular, make provision—

(a) for rights under an unapproved pension arrangement to be excluded from a person's estate—

(i) by an order made on his application by a prescribed court, or
(ii) in accordance with a qualifying agreement made between him and his trustee in bankruptcy;

(b) for the court's decision whether to make such an order in relation to a person to be made by reference to— (i)".

No. 56, in page 13, line 5, leave out

'(b) the extent to which any pension and other benefits'

and insert

'(ii) whether any benefits (by way of a pension or otherwise) are'.

No. 57, in page 13, line 6, at end insert

`and (if so) the extent to which they'.

No. 58, in page 13, line 7, at end insert—
`(c) for the prescribed persons in the case of any pension arrangement to provide a person or his trustee in bankruptcy on request with information reasonably required by that person or trustee for, or in connection with, the making of such applications and agreements as are mentioned in paragraph (a).'.

No. 59, in page 13, line 8, after 'section' insert—
' "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations under this section;
qualifying agreement" means an agreement entered into in such circumstances, and satisfying such requirements, as may be prescribed;'.

No. 60, in page 13, line 12, leave out from 'a' to end of line 13 and insert 'prescribed description.'.

No. 61, in page 13, line 13, at end insert—

'(4) For the purposes of this section a person shall be treated as having a right under an unapproved pension arrangement where—

(a) he is entitled to a credit under section 23(1)(b) as against the person responsible for the arrangement (within the meaning of Chapter I of Part IV), and
(b) the person so responsible has not discharged his liability in respect of 
the credit?.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Clause 14

FORFEITURE OF RIGHTS UNDER PENSION ARRANGEMENTS

Amendment made: No. 62, in page 13, line 41, after `section' insert—

'(a) a person shall be treated as having a right under a personal pension scheme where—

(i) he is entitled to a credit under section 23(1)(b) of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (sharing of rights on divorce etc.),
(ii) he is so entitled as against the person responsible for the scheme (within the meaning of Chapter I of Part IV of that Act), and
(iii) the person so responsible has not discharged his liability in respect of the credit; and

(b)". —[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Schedule 2

PENSIONS: MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 66, in page 72, line 28, at end insert—

`Income payments orders against pension payments

1YA. In section 32(2) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (vesting of estate, and dealings of debtor, after sequestration), at the beginning insert "Notwithstanding anything in section 11 or 12 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999,".

1ZA. In section 310(7) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (bankrupt's income against which income payments orders may be made includes certain payments under pension schemes), after "employment and" insert "(despite anything in section 11 or 12 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999)".'.

No. 67, in page 73, line 22, at end insert—
'Effect of certain orders on guaranteed minimum pensions
. In section 47 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (entitlement to guaranteed minimum pension for the purposes of the relationship with social security benefits), after subsection (6) (which is inserted by section 26(4) of this Act) add—

"(7) For the purposes of section 46, a person shall be treated as entitled to any guaranteed minimum pension to which he would have been entitled but for any order under section 342A of the Insolvency Act 1986 (recovery of excessive pension contributions) or under section 36A of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985."'.

No. 46, in page 74, line 31, at end insert—

'5A. In section 3(2)(b) of the Pensions Act 1995 (power of Authority to remove pension scheme trustee to whom section 3 applies by virtue of any other provision of Part I of the Act), for "this Part" substitute "this or any other Act".'.

No. 32, in page 76, line 10, at end insert—

`Diligence against pensions: Scotland
12A. In section 94(3) of the Pensions Act 1995 (application of sections 91 and 92 to Scotland), at the end insert—

"(f) after subsection 91(4) there is inserted—

"(4A) Subject to section 73(3)(d) of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, nothing in this section prevents any diligence mentioned in section 46 of that Act being done against a pension under an occupational pension scheme?'"' '.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Schedule 3

PENSION SHARING ORDERS: ENGLAND AND WALES

Amendments made: No. 33, in page 79, line 8, leave out 'rules' and insert 'regulations'.

No. 34, in page 79, line 9, leave out 'rules' and insert `regulations'.

No. 35, in page 79, line 37, leave out 'rules' and insert 'regulations'.

No. 36, in page 80, line 5, leave out 'rules' and insert `regulations'.

No. 37, in page 80, line 28, at end insert—

`() In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) or (3) above whether a person has acted to his detriment in reliance on the taking effect of the order, the appeal court may disregard any detriment which in its opinion is insignificant?.'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Schedule 4

AMENDMENTS OF SECTIONS 25B TO 25D OF THE MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT 1973

Amendments made: No. 38, in page 82, line 8, leave out 'second' and insert 'new'.

No. 39, in page 83, line 4, leave out from `to' to end of line 5 and insert

'any of the court's powers under this Part of this Act,'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Clause 22

ACTIVATION OF PENSION SHARING

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 19, line 11, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

'(b) such information relating to the transferor and transferee as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations under section 28(1)(b)(ii).'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Clause 37

POWER TO EXTEND JUDICIAL PENSION SCHEMES

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 36, line 24, at end insert

',including subordinate legislation which provides for calculation of the value of rights in accordance with guidance from time to time prepared by a person specified in the subordinate legislation.'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Clause 42

ACTIVATION OF BENEFIT SHARING

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 40, line 11, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

'(b) such information relating to the transferor and transferee as the Secretary of State may prescribe by regulations under section 28(1)(b)(ii).'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Clause 48

ENTITLEMENTS TO CATEGORY B RETIREMENT PENSION BY REFERENCE TO NEW ALLOWANCES

Amendments made: No. 63, in page 46, line 23, leave out

'time of the spouse's death'

and insert 'relevant time'.

No. 64, in page 46, line 29, at end insert—

'(8A) In subsection (8) above "the relevant time" means—

(a) where the pensioner became entitled to a widowed parent's allowance in consequence of the death of the spouse, the time when the pensioner's entitlement to that allowance ended; and
(b) otherwise, the time of the spouse's death.'.

No. 65, in page 46, line 31, leave out '(8)' and insert '(8A)'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Clause 49

CLAIM OR FULL ENTITLEMENT TO CERTAIN BENEFITS CONDITIONAL ON WORK-FOCUSED INTERVIEW

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 49, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert—

'(b) a person providing services to the Secretary of State,

(c) a local authority,

(d) a person providing services to, or authorised to exercise any function of, any such authority;'.

No. 17, in page 49, line 23, leave out '(6))' and insert '(7))'.

No. 78, in page 49, line 34, at end insert—

`and the purposes which may be so specified include purposes connected with a person's existing or future employment or training prospects or needs, and (in particular) assisting or encouraging a person to enhance his employment prospects.'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Schedule 7

JOINT CLAIM FOR JOBSEEKER'S ALLOWANCE

Amendments made: No. 92, in page 93, line 21, at end insert—

`() Subsections (1) and (2) have effect subject to section 4A(2A) and (4A).'.

No. 93, in page 93, line 45, after 'couple' insert

`or a member of such a couple'.

No. 94, in page 93, line 45, leave out from 'which' to `applies' in line 46 and insert

`contains corresponding provisions relating to joint-claim couples,'.

No. 95, in page 93, line 48, leave out from '4A' to `have' in line 51 and insert—

'(1ZA) This section applies where—

(a) a joint-claim couple are entitled to a joint-claim jobseeker's 
allowance, and
(b) one or each of the members of the couple is in addition entitled to a contribution—based jobseeker's allowance;

and in such a case the provisions of this section have effect in relation to the couple in place of section 4(3A).

(1) If a joint-claim couple falling within subsection (1ZA)'.

No. 96, in page 94, line 6, leave out

`to a couple to whom subsection (1) applies'

and insert

`in accordance with subsection (1)'.

No. 97, in page 94, line 13, at end insert—

'(2A) Where the amount payable in accordance with subsection (1) is the couple's personal rate, then—

(a) if each member of the couple is entitled to a contribution-based jobseeker's allowance, an amount equal to the member's own personal rate shall be payable in respect of the member by way of such an allowance;
(b) if only one of them is so entitled, an amount equal to that member's personal rate shall be payable in respect of the member by way of such an allowance;

and in either case nothing shall be payable in respect of the couple by way of a joint-claim jobseeker's allowance.'.

No. 98, in page 94, line 14, leave out from '(3)' to `shall' in line 17 and insert

'If a joint-claim couple falling within subsection (1ZA) have an income, the amount payable in respect of the couple by way of a jobseeker's allowance'.

No. 99, in page 94, line 23, leave out

'to a couple to whom subsection (3) applies'

and insert

'in accordance with subsection (3)'.

No. 100, in page 94, line 32, at end insert—

'(4A) Where the amount payable in accordance with subsection (3) is the couple's personal rate, subsection (2A) shall apply as it applies in a case where the amount payable in accordance with subsection (1) is that rate.'.

No. 101, in page 94, line 38, leave out 'satisfies the contribution-based conditions,' and insert

`is entitled to a contribution-based jobseeker's allowance,'.

No. 102, in page 94, line 39, leave out 'a contribution-based jobseeker's' and insert 'such an'.

No. 103, in page 94, line 41, leave out 'satisfies those conditions,' and insert

'is entitled to a contribution-based jobseeker's allowance,'.

No. 104, in page 94, line 51, leave out 'satisfies the contribution-based conditions,' and insert

'is entitled to a contribution-based jobseeker's allowance,'.

No. 105, in page 95, line 1, leave out 'satisfies those conditions,' and insert

'is entitled to such an allowance,'.

No. 40, in page 95, line 2, at end insert—

'6A.—(l) Section 8 (power to make regulations requiring attendance etc.) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), after "claimant" insert "(other than a joint-claim couple claiming a joint-claim jobseeker's allowance)".

(3) After subsection (1) insert—

"(IA) Regulations may make provision—

(a) for requiring each member of a joint-claim couple claiming a joint-claim jobseeker's allowance to attend at such place and such time as the Secretary of State may specify;
(b) for requiring a member of such a couple to provide information and such evidence as may be prescribed as to his circumstances, his availability for employment and the extent to which he is actively seeking employment;
(c) for requiring such a couple to jointly provide information and such evidence as may be prescribed as to the circumstances of each or either member of the couple, the availability for employment of each or either member of the couple and the extent to which each or either member of the couple is actively seeking employment;
(d) where any requirement to provide information or evidence is imposed on such a couple by virtue of paragraph (c), for the joint obligation of the couple to be capable of being discharged by the provision of the information or evidence by one member of the couple."

(4) In subsection (2), after "Regulations under subsection (1)" insert "or (1A)".

(5) In subsection (2)(a) (cases where entitlement to allowance may cease on account of non-compliance), after "in the case of a claimant who" insert ", or (as the case may be) a joint-claim couple claiming a joint-claim jobseeker's allowance a member of which,".

(6) In subsection (2)(b) (cases where entitlement to allowance may cease by reference to the time expired since the claimant's last attendance)—

(a) after "he" insert "or, as the case may be, a member of the joint-claim couple"; and
(b) after "subsection (1)(a)" insert "or (1A)(a)".

(7) For paragraph (c) of subsection (2) (provision for entitlement not to cease where good cause shown) substitute—

"(c) provide for entitlement not to cease if the claimant or (as the case may be) either member of the joint-claim couple shows, within a prescribed period of the failure to comply on the part of the claimant or (as the

case may be) a member of the couple, that the claimant or (as the case may be) the defaulting member of the couple had good cause for that failure; and".'.

No. 91, in page 99, line 21, at end insert—

'() After paragraph 9 insert—

"Continuity of claims and awards: persons ceasing to be a joint-claim couple

9A.—(1) Regulations may make provision about the entitlement to a jobseeker's allowance of persons ("ex-members") who cease to be members of a joint-claim couple.

(2) Regulations under this paragraph may, in particular, provide—

(a) for treating each or either of the ex-members as having made any claim made by the couple or, alternatively, for any such claim to lapse;
(b) for any award made in respect of the couple to be replaced by an award (a "replacement award") in respect of each or either of the ex-members of the couple or, alternatively, for any such award to lapse.

Continuity of claims and awards: persons again becoming a joint-claim couple

9B.—(1) Regulations may make provision about the entitlement to a jobseeker's allowance of persons ("ex-members") who, having ceased to be members of a joint-claim couple, again become the members of a joint-claim couple.

(2) Regulations under this paragraph may, in particular, provide—

(a) for any claim made by the ex-members when they were previously a joint-claim couple to be revived or otherwise given effect as a claim made by the couple;
(b) for any award made in respect of the ex-members when they were previously a joint-claim couple to be restored;
(c) for any such award, or any replacement award (within the meaning of paragraph 9A) made in respect of either of them, to be replaced by an award (a 
"new award") in respect of the couple.

Continuity of claims and awards: couple becoming a joint-claim couple

9C.—(1) Regulations may make provision about the entitlement to a jobseeker's allowance of persons who become members of a joint-claim couple as a result of the married or unmarried couple of which they are members becoming a joint-claim couple.

(2) Regulations under this paragraph may, in particular, provide—

(a) for any claim made by either member of the couple before the couple became a joint-claim couple to be given effect as a claim made by the couple;
(b) for any award, or any replacement award (within the meaning of paragraph 9A), made in respect of either member of the couple before the couple became a joint-claim couple to be replaced by an award (a "new award") in respect of the couple.

Paragraphs 9A to 9C: supplementary

9D.—(1) Regulations may provide, in relation to any replacement award (within the meaning of paragraph 9A) or new award (within the meaning of paragraph 9B or 9C), for—

(a) the award to be of an amount determined in a prescribed manner;
(b) entitlement to the award to be subject to compliance with prescribed requirements as to the provision of information and evidence.

(2) In paragraphs 9A to 9C and this paragraph—

"award" means an award of a jobseeker's allowance;

"claim" means a claim for a jobseeker's allowance."'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Clause 51

SPECIAL SCHEMES FOR CLAIMANTS FOR JOBSEEKER'S ALLOWANCE

Amendment made: No. 30, in page 51, line 13, at end insert—

'(6A) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under section 26 of the Employment Act 1988 (status of trainees etc.) shall include power to make, in relation to—

(a) persons participating in any scheme, and
(b) payments received by them by virtue of subsection (5) above,

provision corresponding to any provision which (by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) of that section) may be made in relation to persons using such facilities, and to such payments received by them, as are mentioned in subsection (1) of that section.'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Clause 59

CERTAIN OVERPAYMENTS OF BENEFIT NOT TO BE RECOVERABLE

Amendment made: No. 47, in page 56, line 36, leave out

`or section 30(2)(a) or (b)'

and insert

`, 30(2)(a) or (b) or 35(1)(a) or(b)'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Schedule 8

WELFARE BENEFITS: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 106, in page 105, line 4, at end insert—

`() In section 4 (amount payable by way of a jobseeker's allowance), in each of subsections (6) and (8) (amount payable where claimant satisfies the contribution-based, and the income-based, conditions)—

(a) for "satisfies both the contribution-based conditions and the income-based conditions" substitute "is entitled to both a contribution-based jobseeker's allowance and an income-based jobseeker's allowance"; and
(b) after "the amount payable" insert "by way of a jobseeker's allowance".'.

No. 9, in page 105, line 12, at end insert—

'PART VA

MATERNITY ALLOWANCE

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (c.4)

29A. The Contributions and Benefits Act has effect subject to the following amendments.

29B.—(1) Section 21 (contribution conditions) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), after "30A below" insert ", maternity allowance under section 35 below".
(3) In subsection (2), omit the entry relating to maternity allowance.

(4) In subsection (4), omit ", other than maternity allowance,".

29C. In section 176(1)(c) (parliamentary control), after "section 28(2)" insert—

"section 35A(7);".'.

No. 41, in page 105, line 27, after 'sections' insert `51,'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Clause 63

SUPPLY OF INFORMATION FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES

Amendment made: No. 48, in page 60, line 16, at end insert

', (Optional work focused interviews),'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Schedule 12

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 68, in page 130, line 11, at end insert—

'Insolvency Act 1986 (c.45)

62A. The Insolvency Act 1986 is amended as follows.

62B. After section 342C there is inserted—

"Recovery of excessive contributions in pensionsharing cases

342D.—(1) For the purposes of sections 339, 341 and 342, a pension—sharing transaction shall be taken—

(a) to be a transaction, entered into by the transferor with the transferee, by which the appropriate amount is transferred by the transferor to the transferee; and
(b) to be capable of being a transaction entered into at an undervalue only so far as it is a transfer of so much of the appropriate amount as represents excessive contributions.

(2) For the purposes of sections 340 to 342, a pension-sharing transaction shall be taken—

(a) to be something (namely a transfer of the appropriate amount to the transferee) done by the transferor; and
(b) to be capable of being a preference given to the transferee only so far as it is a transfer of so much of the appropriate amount as represents excessive contributions.

(3) If on an application under section 339 or 340 any question arises as to whether, or the extent to which, the appropriate amount in the case of a pension-sharing transaction represents excessive contributions, the question shall be determined in accordance with subsections (4) to (8).

(4) The court shall first determine the extent (if any) to which the transferor's rights under the shared arrangement at the time of the transaction appear to have been (whether directly or indirectly) the fruits of contributions ("personal contributions")—

(a) which the transferor has at any time made on his own behalf, or
(b) which have at any time been made on the transferor's behalf, 
to the shared arrangement or any other pension arrangement.

(5) Where it appears that those rights were to any extent the fruits of personal contributions, the court shall then determine the extent (if any) to which those rights appear to have been the fruits of personal contributions whose making has unfairly prejudiced the transferor's creditors ("unfair contributions").

(6) If it appears to the court that the extent to which those rights were the fruits of unfair contributions is such that the transfer of the appropriate amount could have been made out of rights under the shared arrangement which were not the fruits of unfair contributions, then the appropriate amount does not represent excessive contributions.

(7) If it appears to the court that the transfer could not have been wholly so made, then the appropriate amount represents excessive contributions to the extent to which it appears to the court that the transfer could not have been so made.

(8) In making the determination mentioned in subsection (5) the court shall consider in particular the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 342A(6).

(9) In this section—

"appropriate amount", in relation to a pension-sharing transaction, means the appropriate amount in relation to that transaction for the purposes of section 23(1) of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (creation of pension credits and debits);

"pension-sharing transaction" means an order or provision falling within section 22(1) of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (orders and agreements which activate pension-sharing);

"shared arrangement", in relation to a pension-sharing transaction, means the pension arrangement to which the transaction relates;

"transferee", in relation to a pension-sharing transaction, means the person for whose benefit the transaction is made;

"transferor", in relation to a pension-sharing transaction, means the person to whose rights the transaction relates."'.

No. 69, in page 130, line 11, at end insert—

'62C. In section 384(1) (meaning of "prescribed" in the second Group of Parts), after "Subject to the next subsection" insert "and section 342C(7) in Chapter V of Part IX".'.

No. 108, in page 130, line 33, leave out 'as follows' and insert

`in accordance with sub-paragraphs (2) to (5)'.

No. 49, in page 130, line 45, at end insert—

'Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c.5)

68A. After section 140E of the Administration Act insert—

"Financing of other expenditure

140EE.—(1) The Secretary of State may make to a local authority such payments as he thinks fit in respect of expenses incurred by the authority in connection with the carrying out of any relevant function—

(a) by the authority,
(b) by any person providing services to the authority, or
(c) by any person authorised by the authority to carry out that function.

(2) In subsection (1) "relevant function" means any function conferred by virtue of section 2A, 2C or 7A above.

(3) The following provisions, namely—

(a) in section 140B, subsections (1), (3), (4), (5)(b), (7)(b) and (8), and
(b) section 140C,

apply in relation to a payment under this section as in relation to a payment of subsidy.

(4) The Secretary of State may (without prejudice to the generality of his powers in relation to the amount of subsidy) take into account the fact that an amount has been paid under this section in respect of costs falling within section 140B(4A)(a) above." '.

No. 109, in page 130, line 45, at end insert—

'(6) In paragraph 6 of that Schedule—

(a) in sub-paragraph (5), for "section 159A" substitute "section 4A, 159A"; and
(b) in sub-paragraph (6), after "relating" insert "to relevant payments or benefits within the meaning of section 4A above or (as the case may be).'.

No. 111, in page 131, line 13, leave out 'as follows' and insert

`in accordance with sub-paragraphs (2) to (5)'.

No. 112, in page 131, line 25, at end insert—

'(6) In paragraph 6 of that Schedule—


(a) in sub-paragraph (5), for "section 155A" substitute "section 4A, 155A"; and
(b) in sub-paragraph (6), after "relating" insert "to relevant payments or benefits within the meaning of section 4A above or (as the case may be).'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Clause 74

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 67, line 17, leave out subsection (9) and insert—

'(9) Where an action of divorce or an action for declarator of nullity has been brought before the day on which section 18 comes into force—

(a) no pension-sharing order may be made under section 8(1) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985, and
(b) neither paragraph (f) of section 22(1) nor paragraph (f) of section 42(1) shall apply,

in relation to that divorce or declarator.'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Schedule 13

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 70, in page 131, leave out lines 31 to 35.

No. 71, in page 132, line 24, column 3, at end insert—

`Section 95.'.

No. 10, in page 135, line 11, column 3, at end insert—



`In section 21, in subsection (2) the entry relating to maternity allowance, and in subsection (4) the words ", other than maternity allowance,".



In Schedule 3, in Part I, paragraph 3.


In Schedule 4, in Part I, the entry relating to maternity allowance.'.

No. 11, in page 135, line 14, at end insert—

'S.I. 1994/1230.
Maternity Allowance and Statutory
Regulations 2(1), (2) and (4) and 6(2).'.




Maternity Pay Regulations 1994.

—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Clause 77

COMMENCEMENT

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 68, line 14, at end insert—

`() section 49;'.

No. 51, in page 68, line 14, at end insert—

'() section (Optional work-focused interviews);'.

No. 50, in page 68, line 18, at end insert—

'() section 73(1) so far as relating to paragraph 68A of Schedule 12;'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Clause 78

EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 72, in page 68, line 30, at end insert—

'() section (Excessive pension contributions made by persons who have become insolvent);'.

No. 73, in page 68, line 30, at end insert—

`() paragraph 1ZA of Schedule 2, and section 16 so far as relating thereto;'.

No. 74, in page 68, line 32, after '5' insert 'and 62A to 62C'.

No. 75, in page 68, line 36, after & 13' insert

`and (Excessive pension contributions made by persons who have become insolvent: Scotland);'.

No. 76, in page 68, line 36, leave out 'and' and insert—

'() paragraph 1YA of Schedule 2, and section 16 so far as relating thereto;

() section'.

No. 77, in page 69, line 3, after 'paragraphs' insert '1YA, 1ZA,'.

No. 107, in page 69, line 8, after '64', insert

',(Earnings of workers supplied by service companies etc.)'.

No. 52, in page 69, line 12, leave out '68' and insert '68A'.

No. 110, in page 69, line 33, after '65', insert

',(Earnings of workers supplied by service companies etc: Northern Ireland).'—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. David Davis(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The convention in the House is that Finance Bills are not guillotined—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I understand that the microphones are not on. They will be put on as quickly as possible.

Mr. Davis: The effect of today's guillotine is that amendment No. 27, which would have removed clause 71 from the Bill, was incapable of being debated. Clause 71 has an effect greater than any Finance Bill, in that it removes the requirement for primary legislation prior to major expenditure by the lead Department today.
Can you give me some assistance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that the House can be protected from that mechanism in the future? Is it possible for the substantive point within

the amendment to be dealt with by the Government at some point? I see that there is a Minister on the Treasury Bench who may be able to help us.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, but the House has agreed the guillotine motion and things have simply have transpired in the way that he has described.

Mr. Timms: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an important power which allows us to proceed with investment in new computer systems for changes to the benefit system. I understand that it would be helpful to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who chairs the Public Accounts Committee, and to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who chairs the Select Committee on Social Security, if we could agree an arrangement whereby the report, which will be submitted to the House to permit the expenditure to go ahead could, in normal circumstances, be looked at by those Committees before the House reaches a decision.
Subject to discussion between us, I am sure that we could come up with a mechanism to ensure that that happens in normal circumstances.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the Minister for his response.

The House having divided: Ayes 360, Noes 142.

Division No. 194]
[7.45 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Buck, Ms Karen


Ainger, Nick
Burden, Richard


Alexander, Douglas
Burgon, Colin


Allen, Graham
Butler, Mrs Christine


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Atkins, Charlotte
Campbell—Savours, Dale


Banks, Tony
Cann, Jamie


Barron, Kevin
Caplin, Ivor


Battle, John
Casale, Roger


Bayley, Hugh
Caton, Martin


Beard, Nigel
Cawsey, Ian


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Begg, Miss Anne
Church, Ms Judith


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clapham, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Benton, Joe
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bermingham, Gerald



Best, Harold
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Betts, Clive
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Blackman, Liz
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Blizzard, Bob
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Clelland, David


Boateng, Paul
Clwyd, Ann


Borrow, David
Coaker, Vernon


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cohen, Harry


Bradshaw, Ben
Coleman, Iain


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Colman, Tony


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon
Corbett, Robin


(Dunfermline E)
Corston, Ms Jean


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Cousins, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cox, Tom


Browne, Desmond
Cranston, Ross






Crausby, David
Hood, Jimmy


Cummings, John
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack
Hope, Phil


(Copeland)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Howells, Dr Kim


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hoyle, Lindsay


Darvill, Keith
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davidson, Ian
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hurst, Alan


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Hutton, John


Dawson, Hilton
Iddon, Dr Brian


Dean, Mrs Janet
Illsley, Eric


Denham, John
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dismore, Andrew



Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jamieson, David


Doran, Frank
Jenkins, Brian


Dowd, Jim
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Drew, David
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Drown, Ms Julia
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Efford, Clive
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Ennis, Jeff
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Etherington, Bill
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Fisher, Mark
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Flint, Caroline
Kemp, Fraser


Flynn, Paul



Follett, Barbara
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Khabra, Piara S


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Kidney, David


Foulkes, George
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fyfe, Maria
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Galbraith, Sam
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Gapes, Mike
Kingham, Ms Tess


Gardiner, Barry
Kumar, Dr Ashok


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Gerrard, Neil
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Gibson, Dr Ian
Laxton, Bob


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Lepper, David


Godman, Dr Norman A
Leslie, Christopher


Godsiff, Roger
Levitt, Tom


Goggins, Paul
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Linton, Martin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Lock, David


Grocott, Bruce
Love, Andrew


Grogan, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Gunnell, John
McCabe, Steve


Hain, Peter
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
(Makerfield)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hanson, David
Macdonald, Calum


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McFall, John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Healey, John
Mclsaac, Shona


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)



Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hepburn, Stephen
Mackinlay, Andrew


Heppell, John
McLeish, Henry


Hesford, Stephen
McNamara, Kevin


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
McNulty, Tony


Hill, Keith
MacShane, Denis


Hinchliffe, David
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hodge, Ms Margaret
McWalter, Tony


Hoey, Kate
Mallaber, Judy


Home Robertson, John






Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Sarwar, Mohammad


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Savidge, Malcolm


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Sawford, Phil


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Shaw, Jonathan


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


Martlew, Eric
Shipley, Ms Debra


Maxton, John
Singh, Marsha


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Miller, Andrew
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Spellar, John


Morley, Elliot
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mountford, Kali
Steinberg, Gerry


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Stevenson, George


Mudie, George
Stewart, David (Inverness E)



Mullin, Chris
Stinchcombe, Paul


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stott, Roger


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Norris, Dan
Stringer, Graham


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Hara, Eddie
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Olner, Bill
(Dewsbury)


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Taylor, David (NW Leis)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Temple—Morris, Peter


Palmer, Dr Nick
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pearson, Ian
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pendry, Tom
Timms, Stephen


Perham, Ms Linda
Tipping, Paddy


Pickthall, Colin
Todd, Mark


Pike, Peter L
Touhig, Don


Plaskitt, James
Trickett, Jon


Pollard, Kerry
Truswell, Paul


Pond, Chris
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pope, Greg
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Vaz, Keith


Primarolo, Dawn
Vis, Dr Rudi


Prosser, Gwyn
Walley, Ms Joan


Purchase, Ken
Ward, Ms Claire


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Watts, David


Quinn, Lawrie
White, Brian


Radice, Giles
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Rammell, Bill
Wicks, Malcolm


Rapson, Syd
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Raynsford, Nick
(Swansea W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Robertson, Rt Hon George
Wills, Michael


(Hamilton S)
Wilson, Brian


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Rooney, Terry
Woolas, Phil


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Worthington, Tony


Rowlands, Ted
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Roy, Frank
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Ruane, Chris
Wyatt, Derek


Ruddock, Joan



Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ryan, Ms Joan
Mr. Mike Hall and


Salter, Martin
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.






NOES


Amess, David
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Evans, Nigel


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Faber, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Fabricant, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fallon, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Fearn, Ronnie


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Flight, Howard


Bercow, John
Forsythe, Clifford


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Blunt, Crispin
Foster, Don (Bath)


Body, Sir Richard
Gale, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Gibb, Nick


Brand, Dr Peter
Gillen, Mrs Cheryl


Brazier, Julian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gray, James


Browning, Mrs Angela
Green, Damian


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Burnett, John
Hammond, Philip


Burns, Simon
Hawkins, Nick


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


(NE Fife)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Cash, William
Horam, John


Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Chidgey, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Chope, Christopher
Hunter, Andrew


Clappison, James
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Colvin, Michael
Jenkin, Bernard


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cotter, Brian
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cran, James
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Key, Robert


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Duncan, Alan
Kirkwood, Archy


Duncan Smith, Iain
Laing, Mrs Eleanor



Lait, Mrs Jacqui





Lansley, Andrew
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Leigh, Edward
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Letwin, Oliver
Soames, Nicholas


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Lidington, David
Stunell, Andrew


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Swayne, Desmond


Livsey, Richard
Syms, Robert


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Taylor, Sir Teddy


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Thompson, William


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Tredinnick, David


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Trend, Michael


May, Mrs Theresa
Tyler, Paul


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Tyrie, Andrew


Moss, Malcolm
Viggers, Peter


Norman, Archie
Walter, Robert


Oaten, Mark
Wardle, Charles


Öpik, Lembit
Waterson, Nigel


Ottaway, Richard
Webb, Steve


Page, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Paice, James
Welsh, Andrew


Paterson, Owen
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Pickles, Eric
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Prior, David
Wilkinson, John


Randall, John
Willis, Phil


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robathan, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Woodward, Shaun


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Yeo, Tim


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Ruffley, David



Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tellers for the Noes:


Sanders, Adrian
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Shepherd, Richard
Mr. Stephen Day.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — British Deaths (France)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Tim Collins: This is a serious subject that involves many people around the country. I know that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) hopes to catch your eye for a minute or two after my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall truncate them to give him an opportunity to speak.
I welcome the Minister and congratulate him on his promotion. I recognise that he is new to his present duties, which he took over in tragic circumstances following the departure of his much missed predecessor. I hope that he will be able to consider what I say seriously and reflect on some of the points that are raised.
The first case that I should like to raise concerns the Allison family from my constituency. Mr. Clive Allison, the son of my constituents, disappeared on 25 April last year. He was working in Lyon and had been working in France for two years. He was 27 and worked at a bar. On the day he disappeared, the French police and the British consulate in Lyon were informed by English speaking and French friends of Mr. Allison that he had disappeared. Unfortunately, the British consulate did not notify his family in my constituency that he had disappeared. That is the first cause of their anxiety about the case.
The second cause of the family's anxiety is that when they were informed four days later, my constituent Mr. Jim Allison telephoned the local French police and spoke to an officer who slammed the phone down on him shortly into the conversation, even though he was naturally distressed because he had just learned that his son had disappeared. The British consulate suggested that it must have been because my constituent was speaking to the French police officer in schoolboy French. In fact, he was speaking to a policeman who was fluent in English.
The third incident in the chain of events is that when the friends of Mr. Clive Allison reported to the French police that he had disappeared, they were told that the French police were not prepared to mount a missing person's inquiry for him and that the friends would have to go round the local hospitals to see whether he had turned up in one of them.
The next stage in this tragic tale is that the body of Mr. Allison was fished out of the local river in Lyon on 4 May and taken to the Government medical institute in the town. It was not tagged for three days so, at one point, it was reported missing. The body was subsequently recovered.
When it was flown back to the UK aboard Air France, the accompanying paperwork disappeared. To this day, that paperwork has not been found. No direct apology has even been given by Air France to the family. Because of the absence of that paperwork, an entirely new post mortem had to be performed on the body when it arrived back in the UK.
The final stage in this tragic set of occurrences was that the inquest into the death was adjourned on 25 September because the coroner in Barrow-in-Furness needed some paperwork from the French authorities to complete

his inquiries. To this day, some eight months later, that paperwork has not been provided. In a letter from Mr. Ian Smith, the coroner at Barrow, he said that he shared the concerns of my constituent Mr. Jim Allison about the failure of the French authorities in this instance. He said:
regrettably what is happening in this particular case is a reflection of what happens in most cases where a British subject dies in France and the body is repatriated and an inquest results…I frequently find a lack of thorough investigation and a considerable delay in sending what little information is available. By way of contrast I have dealt with deaths from China, Hong Kong and Zambia amongst others and have received good quality information within a reasonable time and the Chinese authorities had even translated into English.
My concern is that we are all citizens of the European Union. France is our nearest neighbouring member state of the EU, and it is important that the French authorities operate in circumstances relating to tragedies such as this at least as efficiently as countries such as Zambia or China.
Sadly, this is not an isolated case. The merest glimpse at some recently publicised stories in our national newspapers would indicate that there have been a number of other cases. Perhaps the most highly publicised is that of Caroline Dickinson, and I know that the hon. Member for North Cornwall will wish to speak about that later.
There was also the case of Roderick Henderson, who died after being kicked in the head in the Champs Elysées in October 1997. A report in The Daily Telegraph of the 15 July 1998 begins:
A coroner condemned the French authorities yesterday for erecting a 'brick wall of virtual silence' around the investigation
of that murder.
I do not approach this matter with the view that somehow France is a different country where different standards apply. I certainly do not approach the matter with any hostility towards our neighbouring country. Indeed, this past weekend, I greatly enjoyed with my family an expedition to Paris which, thanks to Eurostar, is a great deal easier and quicker to reach from my London home than my own constituency in the UK.
More and more British people are looking to spend time in France on holiday and on business. It is a neighbour, and it is important that we should have close relations with France and the clearest possible co-operation between the British and French authorities. That is why 1 tabled some parliamentary questions on the matter, and I was a little disappointed with some of the responses that I received.
I received a helpful letter in February from Baroness Symons, the Foreign Office Minister. She told me that the materials that had been sent by the coroner in October had been passed through the British consulate because coroners' requests have to go through the Foreign Office. They were passed to the consulate in November, and passed to the French authorities. The French authorities notified the British consul at the beginning of February that the papers had been retrieved from the archive and that the file was on the desk of the relevant person. The family were told that it could be four months before the paperwork would be processed and passed on to the coroner. It is now nearly four months since the beginning of February, and certainly no papers have arrived.
Mr. Jim Allison, Clive's father, has been a sufferer from multiple sclerosis for 17 years and he has said that the strain has meant that the past year has been much the worst for his condition. Additional stress on someone in those circumstances can make matters worse.
I was pleased that the written answers that I received suggest that the Government have been addressing some of the issues. There was a ministerial meeting last November to consider some of the generic, systemic issues. I welcome that, but I was also told, in a written answer on 31 March, that the Allison case was not discussed in detail at that meeting and is not on the agenda for any future scheduled meeting; nor had Ministers discussed French co-operation with British coroners.
The general conclusion was:
Co-operation is good; the French authorities have to comply with their own formalities."—[Official Report, 31 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 693.]
The evidence of the Allison case and some other cases suggests that that may be too generous an assessment.
I do not for one moment pretend that there is any ingrained hostility to British people in the way in which the French authorities approach these cases—it is conceivable that they are equally inefficient in cases relating to their own citizens—but it is clear that British coroners do not feel that the French respond to their requests as rapidly and efficiently as they could, or anything like as rapidly and efficiently as coroners in other countries, including less developed countries such as Zambia. The coroner in Barrow said that coroners throughout the country thought the same.
I would be enormously grateful if the Minister took an interest in trying to get the French authorities to supply the papers to the coroner in Barrow. My constituents have now waited 13 months for a verdict on the cause of their son's death. The bureaucratic delay has made things worse for them and caused them further distress. I spoke to the father today. He said that the family do not want to sue. They are not interested in compensation, as they would regard it as blood money. They want justice and they want to know that their son can be laid to rest and the case can be closed so that they can begin to move on with their lives.
Will the Minister please address the issue of the possible systemic problem that seems to have occurred in relationships between British coroners and the French authorities? Ministers have already addressed those issues in meetings with their French counterparts. I would be grateful to know whether there are any plans for further meetings.
All the political parties have produced their manifestos for the European elections and all have said that they favour deepening European Union co-operation on interior and justice policy. Can we please begin to move from the rhetoric to the reality? If we are to have closer co-ordination on justice, could we please start with some justice for British citizens who have lost their loved ones in France?

Mr. Paul Tyler: I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on securing this debate, and I am grateful

to him for allowing me a few minutes to add to his remarks and, indeed, to endorse some of his concerns. I thank the Minister for agreeing to my speaking, and I, too, congratulate him most warmly on his new appointment.
As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said, Caroline Dickinson was a constituent of mine. I have worked closely with her parents, John and Sue Dickinson, to see whether we could not only help the French authorities to bring the culprit to justice, but learn some lessons to help others who may have faced similar appalling tragedies.
Caroline was a young student from Launceston college who went on a school trip to the hostel in Pleine Fougeres, where she was murdered. We still do not know who was responsible for that deed. The initial experience that I and her parents had—on both sides of the channel, but especially with the French authorities—was disastrously bad, but it has greatly improved in recent months. As a result of the activities of Baroness Symons, who took an active interest in this case—I took the parents, and other relatives who had been similarly bereaved, to see her—and of the previous Government, who similarly afforded us the opportunity to talk to them about some of the lessons to be learned, the attitude of the French authorities improved distinctly.
Unfortunately and all too often, the slow progress of an inquiry requires the intervention of the British Government before it is approached with more dispatch and effectiveness. In the Dickinson case, the investigative team did not give proper attention to trying to bring the public in France into their confidence and it did not pursue the issue of DNA until it was persuaded to do so by my constituent, Mr. Dickinson. When the team took the opportunity to work with the British police, the investigation advanced dramatically.
I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. When a tragedy occurs, it requires the proactive interest of the British Government at the outset. We should not wait for things to go wrong. That is proved by the fact that when the Government took an interest, there was an immediate improvement both in the flow of information to my constituents and in the urgency with which the investigation was pursued.
Attitudes to investigation procedures differ on either side of the channel. In this country, the police like to take the public into their confidence at the outset. The police try to give as much information as possible to the public and to gain as much information as they can using the media. That is not the French experience and, perhaps, informal steps could be taken, without trying to preach to them, to try to improve that situation.
I wish to emphasise that the key lesson of all the examples with which I have been acquainted is the necessity for a flow of information, whether it be to the coroner's court, the bereaved relatives or the Foreign Office. In many cases, the flow of information has been disastrously slow. When people have suffered such a tragedy, not knowing what is happening—and having no confidence in the process of law in a country just a few miles away across the channel—adds much to the tragic circumstances. I am grateful to the Foreign Office, under this Government and the previous Government, for seeking to assist. I just wish that we had been more effective earlier and, therefore, had achieved better results.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) for his kind words. On behalf of the Government, I acknowledge his thoughtfulness and generosity in withdrawing his application for a debate last Friday to allow hon. Members to attend the funeral of Derek Fatchett. That was a generous and honourable action. I also thank the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for his observations.
I shall begin by explaining the roles of the French and British authorities following the death of a British national in France. When a British national dies in France, the French authorities promptly inform the nearest British consulate. If death is by natural causes, a death certificate is issued by the doctor who certifies the death. If the cause of death is not clear, accidental or violent, the French courts may request a judicial inquiry. The court appoints an investigating magistrate who will order a police investigation, which may take several months to complete. Once that investigation begins, the next of kin, if they want details of it, are required under French law to apply formally to the investigating magistrate to become civil parties to the case. That may take up to a week, during which time the next of kin will be able to obtain only limited information. I recognise that in the immediate aftermath of a death, that could be distressing to a family who might perceive a lack of co-operation on the part of the French authorities. However, it is a French legal requirement, and our consular representatives are not able to circumvent it.
A further problem may be that British families are used to seeing precise causes of death on British death certificates. In France, the precise cause of death is considered confidential and it does not appear on the certificate issued by the doctor. The certificate amounts to a statement that a death has been registered. Again, this may appear curious to British families and may cause concern when appropriate clarification is not immediately forthcoming.
If the next of kin wish to repatriate the body to the United Kingdom, they must apply to the public prosecutor's office for a permit. The undertakers retained by the next of kin usually take responsibility for seeking that. Once the investigating magistrate is satisfied that forensic examination is complete, permission to transport and bury is granted. When all judicial processes are complete, the bereaved family has to apply to a court for copies of any police report.
In accordance with section 8(1) of the Coroners Act 1988, coroners in England and Wales are obliged to hold an inquest into the death of anyone whose body is brought back from abroad for burial in their jurisdiction. The purpose of the inquest is to ascertain who the deceased was and how, when and where the deceased died. Neither the coroner nor the jury can express an opinion on any other matter.
The requirement to hold such inquests was introduced following difficulties with the case of Helen Smith, who died in unnatural circumstances in Saudi Arabia. If the coroner is satisfied that the cause of death has been established by the French authorities, permission is granted for burial. In Scotland, this role falls to the Scottish Office.
If the coroner is not satisfied that the cause of death has been sufficiently established or believes that further investigation is required to establish the cause of death, he may request copies of the French police report and further investigations by the French authorities. British coroners have no direct contact with the French authorities and they ask the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to pass on formal requests. Requests for further investigation may take longer for the French to process, as a court will have to consider them and decide how best to respond. This may involve the re-interviewing of witnesses, whom the court may need to trace.
Our consulates in France monitor the progress of investigations and are prepared to press the French authorities for further action if necessary. In response to the first point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, I undertake to look afresh at that point to ensure that proper action is taken if necessary.
Our consulates cannot, of course, intervene in investigations, direct them or suggest avenues that might be explored. Once the French authorities conclude the further investigations that the British coroner has requested, the consulate obtains a copy of the French report and forwards it to Her Majesty's coroner's office.
Notwithstanding the views that have been set out, I maintain that co-operation between the French and British authorities over the death of British nationals in France is very good. Requests from coroners offices are dealt with sympathetically by the French authorities. Our consulates in France do not usually experience problems with the French police—the gendarmerie—over notification of deaths of British nationals. We have to acknowledge that the French have an entirely different procedure to our own, and that what some may characterise as unacceptable delay is wholly consistent with French procedure and not a matter of poor co-operation.
I listened carefully to the second and third points that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale made. I do not accept that there is a systemic problem. We all share the need to deepen justice in interior matters, but the member states of the European Union have a choice—they can seek to harmonise procedures, but I assume that the hon. Gentleman would not want that; or, and this is the approach that the British Government would pursue, we must accept that each country's procedures are different and recognise them for what they are.

Mr. Collins: 1 accept that there are different traditions, but I hope that the Minister will accept that for many families—certainly my constituents—an appearance is created, I hope unintentionally, of indifference and a casual attitude. Would it be possible for him to take up that matter with the French authorities, suggesting that they could introduce standard procedures saying that they have a different tradition and that they do not seek to create an appearance of indifference?

Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible suggestion. It would be for the French authorities to decide whether it was appropriate to take that course of action. However, I must emphasise that there is no suggestion that, throughout the range of cases with which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has to deal, there is that sort of difficulty.
I appreciate that the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale and for North Cornwall raised different cases in which there have been particular problems at
particular times. I think that the hon. Member for North Cornwall would accept that subsequently the investigation of that particular case has been pursued vigorously and that the French have taken appropriate and necessary action.
The British Government have been keen to ensure that the deaths of British nationals in France are properly investigated. Perhaps it will assist if I say that my noble Friend the Under-Secretary wrote to Madame Guigou, the French Minister of Justice, on 4 August 1998. My noble Friend stressed the importance of bringing to justice the murderers of British nationals in France and asked the French authorities to spare no efforts in seeking culprits. On 30 November 1998, she met senior officials in Paris from the Ministry of the Interior to discuss the handling of deaths of British nationals and to press for vigorous investigations by the French authorities.
On 11 March, the Home Secretary discussed the investigation of Caroline Dickinson's murder with Monsieur Chevènement, the French Minister of the Interior. I can assure the House that we have an active dialogue with the French to satisfy ourselves that thorough investigations into the murders of British nationals in France are carried out in accordance with appropriate French procedures.
I believe that the relationship between the next of kin of the deceased and the French authorities is generally a good one. Our consulates will certainly do all that they can to help. However, I recognise that the aftermath of a sudden death is not the easiest situation for anyone to deal with. The language barrier and an unfamiliar foreign bureaucracy can provide obstacles to achieving immediate

understanding and a good working relationship. The need to become civil parties to the investigation, as I mentioned, and the initial delay to which I referred earlier, can lead to misunderstandings.
Our consulates in France, and indeed all over the world, help next of kin who find difficulty coping with language and cultural differences. They offer guidance on local legislation and customs, and act as intermediaries between the relevant authorities and the next of kin. Our consulates are in continuous dialogue with authorities worldwide to improve working relationships. There is no evidence of systematic discrimination against British nationals in distressing circumstances anywhere, and certainly not in France.
I have the utmost sympathy for those who have experienced the trauma of close relatives dying overseas, especially when the death has been wholly unexpected and untimely. Having to grapple with a foreign legal system, a foreign language, and with unexpected bureaucratic requirements when distraught with grief can clearly overwhelm even the strongest. I can well understand the despair of abiding seemingly endless rounds of investigations and inquiries before grieving relatives are able to feel that justice has been done.
I know that my French counterparts are as anxious as any of us to resolve speedily and effectively all crimes, especially those involving deaths. I will certainly ensure that a further examination is made of the concerns voiced by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, and I will report to him accordingly. We will continue to work with the French authorities to address each of those issues.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Eight o'clock.